A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

There is nothing to understand. It is moronic, incoherent and wrong.

What should I call you? The King; The Almighty; The All Knowing?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who's denying that evil (hurt) doesn't exist? If that were true, then we wouldn't be looking for solutions. That doesn't even make sense.

There are a lot of people who try to deny that Evil exists. Many years ago the game of T-ball was developed, and there was a movement in education to eliminate the failing grade. In these cases loosing or failing was seen as a bad thing for young people, a subtle way of calling it evil. These people were trying to deny that evil existed, in the way they were teaching their children. People also project man's concept of good and evil onto nature. A 'Red Tailed Hawk' took up residence on the side of a building overlooking Central Park in NYC. Many were watching the bird, who acquired the name 'Pale Male', and these people supported the idea of predation as the natural order. There were others who objected to the presence of a predator in the park and wanted the bird removed. They didn't want their children seeing prey animals being taken in front of them. The parents had projected the human evil of murder onto the natural process and were trying to deny this evil in the guise of protecting their children from the bad thngs in life.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would leave a thread that wasn't wasting my time in a nano-second.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. Be careful because you are in line to be ignored.

Very unlikely, if you don't see the posts, you won't know which questions to evade or dodge or try to divert with some denial.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to David. What should I call you? The One and Only; The Almighty David; The All Knowing, or Kind Davidm?

Some of those have a really nice ring to them.

[thedoc]

'Obstrufication', That word is not in my dictionary, like me it's just a little out of date. TGFTI, I can always find the most current trends there, If I only knew how to spell it, and my dictionary is no help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There are a lot of people who try to deny that Evil exists. Many years ago the game of T-ball was developed, and there was a movement in education to eliminate the failing grade. In these cases loosing or failing was seen as a bad thing for young people, a subtle way of calling it evil. These people were trying to deny that evil existed, in the way they were teaching their children.

I believe they had a point. There is no failing grade in reality, which ends up causing jealousy and feelings of inferiority. All we can truthfully say is that a particular answer was correct or incorrect. But to translate that to a failing grade is an entirely different animal.

Originally Posted by thedoc

People also project man's concept of good and evil onto nature. A 'Red Tailed Hawk' took up residence on the side of a building overlooking Central Park in NYC. Many were watching the bird, who acquired the name 'Pale Male', and these people supported the idea of predation as the natural order. There were others who objected to the presence of a predator in the park and wanted the bird removed. They didn't want their children seeing prey animals being taken in front of them. The parents had projected the human evil of murder onto the natural process and were trying to deny this evil in the guise of protecting their children from the bad thngs in life.

I wouldn't want my young child to see an animal ripped apart by a predator if he wasn't mature enough to see this, even though it's the natural order of things. It is appropriate to put things in context doc, and if a parent thinks it's too soon to show a child what happens in the real world, that parent is probably right. So where's the problem? When children are old enough to understand that animals act according to their instinct, it won't be considered evil. When seen in total perspective, there is no evil.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wouldn't want my young child to see an animal ripped apart by a predator if he wasn't mature enough to see this, even though it's the natural order of things.

Were your children strict vegetarians or did you just hide the truth and tell them that everything came from the supermarket. I know a lot of people who grew up on a farm, and that knowledge didn't damage their precious little psyche. Children on a farm learn early where food comes from. It does no child any good to hide reality from them.

YouTube - ‪A pig that wants to be...

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yeah, really.

As has been explained over and over and over again, the entire point of Special Relativity is that information cannot travel faster than does light by any means whatsoever.

So no, it does not make any difference whether or not light is involved. Instantaneous transfer of information is a violation of Special Relativity by definition. That is one of the key points of the theory. Honestly, go read any primer on the subject.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe they had a point. There is no failing grade in reality, which ends up causing jealousy and feelings of inferiority. All we can truthfully say is that a particular answer was correct or incorrect. But to translate that to a failing grade is an entirely different animal.

Their point was wrong, there is failure in reality, marrages fail, businesses fail, people loose their jobs, students do not do the required amount of studying to learn what is required to pass a course. The lesson is to do better and not fail. Yes, all we can say about a particular answer is that it is either right or wrong, but too many wrong answers is a good sign that the student has not learned what is expected, and it is not lack of ability, most of the time it is bad attitude or lazyness. That does translate to a failing grade, both in life and in school.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wouldn't want my young child to see an animal ripped apart by a predator if he wasn't mature enough to see this, even though it's the natural order of things.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Were your children strict vegetarians or did you just hide the truth and tell them that everything came from the supermarket. I know a lot of people who grew up on a farm, and that knowledge didn't damage their precious little psyche. Children on a farm learn early where food comes from. It does no child any good to hide reality from them.

Doc, it's not your call.

Originally Posted by thedoc

YouTube - ‪A pig that wants to be eaten‬‏

Very funny.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It makes no difference if light is involved or not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yeah, really.

As has been explained over and over and over again, the entire point of Special Relativity is that information cannot travel faster than does light by any means whatsoever.

So no, it does not make any difference whether or not light is involved. Instantaneous transfer of information is a violation of Special Relativity by definition. That is one of the key points of the theory. Honestly, go read any primer on the subject.

I don't consider seeing objects and images efferently a transfer of information. I don't believe it's a violation of Special Relativity. People are accusing Lessans of altering a definition to meet his purposes; but not if his definition is more accurate. Let me repeat: Definitions mean nothing as far as reality is concerned, which is why we're going round and round the mulberry bush.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As has been explained over and over and over again, the entire point of Special Relativity is that information cannot travel faster than does light by any means whatsoever.

So no, it does not make any difference whether or not light is involved. Instantaneous transfer of information is a violation of Special Relativity by definition. That is one of the key points of the theory. Honestly, go read any primer on the subject.

She will not concede that seeing is acquiring information, nor will she concede that the visual properties of the object being seen, or any new knowledge gained from seeing, are information at all.

So, by not agreeing to the basic definitions of acquiring and information, she can continue to deny any problem. She can weasel until the fat cows come home to sing.

I see no way around or through this with her.

[Vivisectus]

Then how can the man on Rigel see that Columbus is not landing, but that I am there in stead, holding up a sign? That is definitely information, and it is in the book that the observer gains that information, so it must be 100% correct.

If not then we must come up with an answer to a far more difficult question - if we do not gain information by means of sight, then how the hell do you all know what I am typing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe they had a point. There is no failing grade in reality, which ends up causing jealousy and feelings of inferiority. All we can truthfully say is that a particular answer was correct or incorrect. But to translate that to a failing grade is an entirely different animal.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Their point was wrong, there is failure in reality, marrages fail, businesses fail, people loose their jobs, students do not do the required amount of studying to learn what is required to pass a course. The lesson is to do better and not fail. Yes, all we can say about a particular answer is that it is either right or wrong, but too many wrong answers is a good sign that the student has not learned what is expected, and it is not lack of ability, most of the time it is bad attitude or lazyness. That does translate to a failing grade, both in life and in school.

Of course things happen in life, doc, but many of those things can be prevented, or dealt with in such a way that no one gets hurt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then how can the man on Rigel see that Columbus is not landing, but that I am there in stead, holding up a sign? That is definitely information, and it is in the book that the observer gains that information, so it must be 100% correct.

We already differentiated between seeing information (which does not involve thinking) and understanding that information (which does involve thinking).

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If not then we must come up with an answer to a far more difficult question - if we do not gain information by means of sight, then how the hell do you all know what I am typing?

We gain understanding because of how the brain processes that information. What is the difference whether I see the information (efferent vision) and then process it, or receive the information through the optic nerve (afferent vision), and then process it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then how can the man on Rigel see that Columbus is not landing, but that I am there in stead, holding up a sign? That is definitely information, and it is in the book that the observer gains that information, so it must be 100% correct.

If not then we must come up with an answer to a far more difficult question - if we do not gain information by means of sight, then how the hell do you all know what I am typing?

The brain processes the information and that takes time, according to peacegirl.

What I have been trying to get her to concede to is that getting the information through the eyes, the first step, is acquiring information instantly...what is done with that information is not the point.

[Vivisectus]

We already differentiated between seeing information (which does not involve thinking) and understanding that information (which does involve thinking).

That does not change anything, though. Even if it took me all of 10 minutes to understand what it is I am seeing through my telescope, I would still be acquiring the information a hell of a lot faster than light - and thus I enter into the realm of paradox.

We gain understanding because of how the brain processes that information. What is the difference whether I see the information (efferent vision) and then process it, or receive the information through the optic nerve (afferent vision), and then process it?

Rather a lot. In the case of the man on Rigel, about 800 years minus the few microseconds it takes us to process it. So much faster than light that it still leads to the same paradox, in fact.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She will not concede that seeing is acquiring information, nor will she concede that the visual properties of the object being seen, or any new knowledge gained from seeing, are information at all.

So, by not agreeing to the basic definitions of acquiring and information, she can continue to deny any problem. She can weasel until the fat cows come home to sing.

I see no way around or through this with her.

I feel the same way LadyShea. It's not me who's automatically wrong. The same thing is occurring with Lessans' definition of determinism. Because it doesn't jive with the standard definition, it automatically is assumed to be wrong, just because it's not popular.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then how can the man on Rigel see that Columbus is not landing, but that I am there in stead, holding up a sign? That is definitely information, and it is in the book that the observer gains that information, so it must be 100% correct.

We already discussed that information, according to this definition, does not necessarily mean understanding, which is a secondary process.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If not then we must come up with an answer to a far more difficult question - if we do not gain information by means of sight, then how the hell do you all know what I am typing?

We see, we process. I see the type within my visual field, and then I process what it means. It's two-pronged.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We gain understanding because of how the brain processes that information. What is the difference whether I see the information (efferent vision) and then process it, or receive the information through the optic nerve (afferent vision), and then process it?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Rather a lot. In the case of the man on Rigel, about 800 years minus the few microseconds it takes us to process it. So much faster than light that it still leads to the same paradox, in fact.

Yes, it's a difference of 800 years. But wouldn't you want to know, or at least find out, if this model of sight could be wrong? Remember, I'm not saying we wouldn't see the light after it has traveled from point A to point B. But if we are looking at the light source directly, we would see it in real time. I can see the moon in real time, and can also see the moon's image in a pinhole camera that took a finite time to get there.

[Vivisectus]

whoops doubled it

[Vivisectus]

[quote=Vivisectus;954946]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Rather a lot. In the case of the man on Rigel, about 800 years minus the few microseconds it takes us to process it. So much faster than light that it still leads to the same paradox, in fact.

Yes, it's a difference of 800 years. But wouldn't you want to know, or at least find out, if this model of sight could be wrong? Remember, I'm not saying we wouldn't see the light after it has traveled from point A to point B. But if we are looking at the light source directly, we would see it in real time. I can see the moon in real time, and can also see the moon's image in a pinhole camera that took a finite time to get there.

Ermm - that is beside the point entirely. If we can observe something 800 lightyears away and see what is happening now (minus a few microseconds for the brain to catch up), we cause a paradox. Which is what we were talking about. Not pinhole cameras, the moon, or anything else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ermm - that is beside the point entirely. If we can observe something 800 lightyears away and see what is happening now (minus a few microseconds for the brain to catch up), we cause a paradox. Which is what we were talking about. Not pinhole cameras, the moon, or anything else.

I don't see the paradox. Either we can observe something because it is large enough, bright enough, or close enough...or we wouldn't be able to see it. If we can't see it because it's too small, too dim, or too far away, then a camera wouldn't be able to take a picture of it either, for the same reason.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;954954]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I don't see the paradox. Either we can observe that something because it is large enough or bright enough or close enough...or we can't see it. If we can't see it because it's too far away, then a camera wouldn't be able to take a picture of it either.

Again this has nothing to do with any of that. In the book your father said that a man with a telescope on Rigel would see the earth as it is today. This is not true, because it would cause a paradox. He seems to have been completely unaware of this.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that I get to do anything. I just don't think efferent vision violates any laws of physics, and I don't think Einstein would have had a problem with the definition, because nothing is being transmitted faster than the speed of light.

Information is being acquired instantaneously in this "model" propounded by your air-headed father. That means it violates SR.

I'm sure if he was my father's contemporary, they would have made great friends and would have respected each other's work.

Your delusions of grandeur, they are awesome!

Hey, airhead, remember all the proofs that were shown to you, starting with the moons of Jupiter, which demonstrated two things: (1) We do indeed acquire information by the transmission of light; and (2) light does indeed travel finitely, meaning real-time seeing is impossible?

Remember those? Oh, no, they went in one ear and out the other, with nothing between those ears to stay the progress of the information given to you.