A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

At last: your first ever honest answer. No matter how much evidence is piled up, no matter how inescapable the conclusion that it is in fact not true - you will not change your mind. So your belief that vision is efferent is irrational.

Good thing you at least realize it now.

That's not why I said it's not gonna happen. It's not gonna happen because I don't believe all the tests are in. I mean, seriously, have you ever seen a dog wag its tail in recognition when he sees a picture of his master? You don't need a dog to push a lever to prove that a dog is incapable of this. Why can't a dog recognize his master if the image is traveling to his eye? That's just one test of many that could cast some doubt as to whether afferent vision is true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Liar.

Oh, I know very well that you're no more educable than is a rock.

But others can gain useful information from this train wreck of a thread. And I think it's important to point out how much of a dishonest, dissembling, weaseling little liar you are.

I don't deserve to be called these disgusting names. You have no grasp of Chapters One and Two, nor have you asked one question in regard to this chapter. I don't even think you looked at the book with genuine interest.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not deliberately choosing to keep myself ignorant. How many times have I said let's get off of the discussion until more evidence can be accumulated.

You said you don't understand the structure of the eye and the current scientific model of sight.

The Lone Ranger posted a detailed and illustrated explanation of the current model of sight and the eye, written to be understandable to the lay person.

You said that you were not going to read it. Even though you've asked all here to read at the very least a similar amount of your daddy's book, and would really prefer that we read the entire thing, which is many many times longer than The Lone Ranger's article on sight.

So, you admitted that you were ignorant of the details of the scientific model of sight, you were offered a way to educate yourself, you chose not to read it.

That sounds a lot like "choosing to remain ignorant" to me.

You claim you don't have time to read 30 pages, but you have time to read hundreds of pages of this thread. You claim there's not enough evidence, but you haven't even begun to examine the evidence, or even understand the scientific model. How can you claim there's not enough evidence when you haven't even looked at it?

Why would you resent me for wanting further testing, even if you believe all the results are in?

Would you resent me for saying there's not enough evidence that your father didn't belong in a mental institution and we really ought to have more psychologists examine his writings before I could believe that he wasn't insane?

So why are you hanging around? To see how long it takes for me to admit I'm wrong? Ain't gonna happen.

I thought you were saying that you might be wrong, you just need more evidence.

You haven't looked at the evidence, but here you are claiming that you're not going to admit you're wrong.

Also, to belabor the point...

I'm an American. This is a piece of information. If I hold up a sign that says "I'm American" and an observer on Rigel looks through a telescope and sees my sign, they have learned something that they did not know before, correct? They have learned that I am an American. It took them a nanosecond or however long to process what they saw, and thus to learn that information, but learn it they did. They learned something new as a result of looking at me and my sign. They gained new information. They learned this in less than a second, since it only took them a fraction of a second to process what they were looking at.

They could've taken a year between looking at me and learning that I was an American, and it still would mean that they knew I was an American almost 800 years before the light that reflected off of me and my sign reached Rigel. They gained information about me long before the light that reflected off me reached them.

How is this not a case of information moving faster than the speed of light?

Note, again, that I am not saying that you claimed that light was moving faster than the speed of light or anything like that. I am merely saying that the observer on Rigel learned something about me before the light that reflected off me reached Rigel.

You really just need to answer these questions:

Do you deny that an observer on Rigel would learn something about me in just a fraction of a second if they looked at me right now (presumably through a telescope)? They look at me, they learn some things about me - such as my location, my general shape, size, color, etc. and in the example, the fact that I'm holding a sign that says "I'm an American".

Do you deny that these things that the observer learned about me count as information? That is, if you were going to say "here's a list of information about erimir", would you think that facts such as my location, shape, size, color (aka skin tone) and that I'm American could not be part of that list, since they are not information?

So the observer has looked at me and learned some information about me in the fraction of a second's time that it took for them to process what they were looking at.

Do you deny that it would take almost 800 years for the light reflected off of me to reach Rigel?

If you do not, then do you deny that the observer on Rigel gained information about me faster than the light could travel to Rigel? The observer gained information about me in a fraction of a second, whereas they only received the light reflected off me about 800 years later. Is that not faster?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no information in the light, then your entire premise and conclusion is wrong.

If the information is not in the light, then

WHERE THE FUCK DOES THE INFORMATION COME FROM?

God turns on the sun at noon. People on earth apprehend this fact INSTANTANEOUSLY, according to you.

HAVE THEY NOT THEREFORE ACQUIRED INFORMATION? FINDING OUT THAT THE SUN HAS BEEN TURNED ON IS ACQUIRING INFORMATION, JA?

So, where does that information come from, and how?

And -- here is the point that people have been repeatedly trying to pound into the thick plank of your head -- regardless of where the information comes from, be it from light or from invisible information fairies, if you acquire the information instantaneously you are violating the well-confirmed theory of relativity.



But I suspect you have long realized all this. You are dumb, but not that dumb. You're a liar, is all, trying to sell a book to make some extra cash.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's your rebuttal, and you won't accept that this has nothing to do with faster than light transmission, then you will believe Lessans was wrong, and there's no changing your mind.

Learning the sun is turned on instantensouly, 8.5 minutes BEFORE the light from the newly turned-on sun reaches your goddamned eyes, IS NOT LEARNING SOMETHING FASTER THAN LIGHT CAN TRAVEL?

Fuckwit.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Furthermore, you say I know nothing about philosophy, yet you can't even explain the two-sided equation which is based on a philosophical subject.

There is no "two-sided equation," asshat.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say efferent vision doesn't get information; it just doesn't get information faster than light would transmit that information.

YOU SAID THAT WHEN THE SUN IS TURNED ON, PEOPLE KNOW THIS FACT INSTANTANEOUSLY. HOWEVER, IT TAKES LIGHT FROM THE SUN 8.5 MINUTES TO REACH THE EYE. THIS MEANS, CONTRARY TO THE QUOTE FROM YOU ABOVE, THAT PEOPLE DO GET INFORMATION FASTER THAN LIGHT WOULD TRANSMIT THAT INFORMATION, DOESN'T IT??

So what is your stupid position now? That people do, and don't, get information faster than the speed of light? Is it possible for you to get any more dopy?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not from my perspective LadyShea. Someone can see an event quite differently than someone else due to their relative positions, and still see that event in real time. I know David hates when I say that, but I don't see the conflict.

You don't see the conflict because you're a fucking halfwit, and a dishonest one to boot.

HOW, if everyone sees the sun being turned on INSTANTANEOUSLY, can they possibly disagree on when the sun was turned on?



Oh, that's another thing your Royal Airhead never thought about, because until you came to this thread, you didn't even know what the theory of relativity said. Just like your shitwitted father.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not deliberately choosing to keep myself ignorant.

DID YOU READ THE LONE RANGER'S ESSAY ON LIGHT AND SIGHT? YES OR NO?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't deserve to be called these disgusting names.

You aboslutely deserve it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Furthermore, you say I know nothing about philosophy, yet you can't even explain the two-sided equation which is based on a philosophical subject.

More dishonesty on your part. I've already told you that I have no particular interest in discussing Lessans' alleged philosophy. Thus you have no information whatsoever regarding whether or not I can explain the so-called "two-sided equation" (which isn't an actual equation, but that's beside the point).

What I'm interested in are Lessans' specific, testable claims. Unfortunately, the tests of these claims -- tests which have indeed been conducted, replicated, and confirmed, as you could easily learn if you'd stop hiding your head in the sand and crying "But more tests are needed!" -- conclusively disprove Lessans' claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not deliberately choosing to keep myself ignorant. How many times have I said let's get off of the discussion until more evidence can be accumulated.

Originally Posted by erimir

You said you don't understand the structure of the eye and the current scientific model of sight.

I haven't studied the present model of sight in detail.

Originally Posted by erimir

The Lone Ranger posted a detailed and illustrated explanation of the current model of sight and the eye, written to be understandable to the lay person.

You said that you were not going to read it. Even though you've asked all here to read at the very least a similar amount of your daddy's book, and would really prefer that we read the entire thing, which is many many times longer than The Lone Ranger's article on sight.

I asked if people knew the page number, or if he could move it to essays, but no one responded. This is what I googled.

Functional parts of the rods and cones which are two of the three types of photosensitive cells in the retina

A photoreceptor cell is a specialized type of neuron found in the eye's retina that is capable of phototransduction. The great biological importance of photoreceptors is that they convert light (electromagnetic radiation) into signals that can stimulate biological processes. More specifically, photoreceptor proteins in the cell absorb photons, triggering a change in the cell's membrane potential.

The two classic photoreceptor cells are rods and cones, each contributing information used by the visual system to form a representation of the visual world, sight. The rods are narrower than the cones and distributed differently across the retina, but the chemical process in each which supports phototransduction is similar.[1] A third class of photoreceptor cells was discovered during the 1990s:[2] the photosensitive ganglion cells. These cells do not contribute to sight directly, but are thought to support circadian rhythms and pupillary reflex.

Originally Posted by erimir

So, you admitted that you were ignorant of the details of the scientific model of sight, you were offered a way to educate yourself, you chose not to read it.

I am not in disagreement with the model except for one aspect. I have no problem reading about the structure of the eye and how it works.

Originally Posted by erimir

That sounds a lot like "choosing to remain ignorant" to me.

You claim you don't have time to read 30 pages, but you have time to read hundreds of pages of this thread. You claim there's not enough evidence, but you haven't even begun to examine the evidence, or even understand the scientific model. How can you claim there's not enough evidence when you haven't even looked at it?

I was talking about efferent vision. There's not enough evidence to negate it or support it.

Why would you resent me for wanting further testing, even if you believe all the results are in?

Originally Posted by erimir

Would you resent me for saying there's not enough evidence that your father didn't belong in a mental institution and we really ought to have more psychologists examine his writings before I could believe that he wasn't insane?

If you would hurt him by falsely accusing him, I not only would resent you, I would retaliate. But my wanting empirical testing hurts no one erimir. What a nutty analogy.

So why are you hanging around? To see how long it takes for me to admit I'm wrong? Ain't gonna happen.

Originally Posted by erimir

I thought you were saying that you might be wrong, you just need more evidence.

No, that's not what I meant. I will admit I'm wrong if all the empirical tests prove him wrong, and not a second sooner.

Originally Posted by erimir

You haven't looked at the evidence, but here you are claiming that you're not going to admit you're wrong.

If I know that 2+2=4, I don't need to look at your evidence that 2+2=5 in order for me to know that you're wrong and I'm right. I'm just using this as an example, so don't get bent out of shape.

Originally Posted by erimir

Also, to belabor the point...

I'm an American. This is a piece of information. If I hold up a sign that says "I'm American" and an observer on Rigel looks through a telescope and sees my sign, they have learned something that they did not know before, correct? They have learned that I am an American. It took them a nanosecond or however long to process what they saw, and thus to learn that information, but learn it they did. They learned something new as a result of looking at me and my sign. They gained new information. They learned this in less than a second, since it only took them a fraction of a second to process what they were looking at.

They could've taken a year between looking at me and learning that I was an American, and it still would mean that they knew I was an American almost 800 years before the light that reflected off of me and my sign reached Rigel. They gained information about me long before the light that reflected off me reached them.

How is this not a case of information moving faster than the speed of light?

Note, again, that I am not saying that you claimed that light was moving faster than the speed of light or anything like that. I am merely saying that the observer on Rigel learned something about me before the light that reflected off me reached Rigel.

You really just need to answer these questions:

Do you deny that an observer on Rigel would learn something about me in just a fraction of a second if they looked at me right now (presumably through a telescope)? They look at me, they learn some things about me - such as my location, my general shape, size, color, etc. and in the example, the fact that I'm holding a sign that says "I'm an American".

Do you deny that these things that the observer learned about me count as information? That is, if you were going to say "here's a list of information about erimir", would you think that facts such as my location, shape, size, color (aka skin tone) and that I'm American could not be part of that list, since they are not information?

So the observer has looked at me and learned some information about me in the fraction of a second's time that it took for them to process what they were looking at.

Do you deny that it would take almost 800 years for the light reflected off of me to reach Rigel?

If you do not, then do you deny that the observer on Rigel gained information about me faster than the light could travel to Rigel? The observer gained information about me in a fraction of a second, whereas they only received the light reflected off me about 800 years later. Is that not faster?

It's the definition I am having a problem with. "Information" is a tricky word. I agree that no information can travel faster than the speed of light. The operative word is "travel". If nothing is traveling, then it cannot be traveling faster than the speed of light. Therefore, by definition, you can't use it in regard to efferent vision. In other words, you can't say "efferent vision is erroneous because that would mean information is traveling faster than the speed of light", when it doesn't fit the definition.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's the definition I am having a problem with. "Information" is a tricky word. I agree that no information can travel faster than the speed of light. The operative word is "travel". If nothing is traveling, then it doesn't meet the definition.

THE SUN IS 93 MILLION MILES AWAY. IF GOD TURNS IT ON AT NOON, AND WE LEARN THIS FACT INSTANTANEOUSLY, HOW DID WE ACQUIRE THAT INFORMATION, IF THE INFORMATION DID NOT TRAVEL *SOMEHOW* FROM 93 MILLION MILES AWAY?

ANSWER THE ABOVE GODDAMNED QUESTION AND STOP YOUR DISHONEST WEASELING.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I asked if people knew the page number, or if he could move it to essays, but no one responded.

You flat-out stated that you had no intention of reading it. Repeatedly.

Regardless, you've been given links to both the original essay and to a version posted as an article.

I will admit I'm wrong if all the empirical tests prove him wrong, and not a second sooner.

No you won't, because this has already been done.

"Information" is a tricky word. I agree that no information can travel faster than the speed of light. The operative word is "travel". If nothing is traveling, then it cannot be traveling faster than the speed of light. Therefore, by definition, you can't use it in regard to efferent vision.

More blatant dishonesty on your part. "Information" is very clearly defined in both Information Theory and in Special Relativity. That you choose to remain ignorant of this so that you can continue to pretend that Lessans' notion of sight is compatible with either of them is very telling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

More dishonesty on your part. I've already told you that I have no particular interest in discussing Lessans' alleged philosophy. Thus you have no information whatsoever regarding whether or not I can explain the so-called "two-sided equation" (which isn't an actual equation, but that's beside the point).

What I'm interested in are Lessans' specific, testable claims. Unfortunately, the tests of these claims -- tests which have indeed been conducted, replicated, and confirmed, as you could easily learn if you'd stop hiding your head in the sand and crying "But more tests are needed!" -- conclusively disprove Lessans' claims.

If no one wants to ask me questions regarding his first discovery, this thread is done because the discussion (if you can call it that) on efferent vision is only going to get nastier. I believe you would all tar and feather me without a second thought, if you could. I don't know why this discussion started up again. I can see that I'm just going to be the brunt of more attacks on my character, my intelligence, and my objectivity, which some people are getting a sick thrill out of.

I should have just admited that his first discovery is a modal fallacy and his second discovery is unsupported. His third discovery can't be true because he used observation and reasoning to conclude that we're born again and again. Voila! We would have been done before we started. I should have ended this thread on page one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You flat-out stated that you had no intention of reading it. Repeatedly.

Regardless, you've been given links to both the original essay and to a version posted as an article.

Thanks for the links. I'll try my best to read the article, especially on the section where the photoreceptors are transduced into signals.

I will admit I'm wrong if all the empirical tests prove him wrong, and not a second sooner.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No you won't, because this has already been done.

You actually believe the test with the dog was valid? That's very telling.

"Information" is a tricky word. I agree that no information can travel faster than the speed of light. The operative word is "travel". If nothing is traveling, then it cannot be traveling faster than the speed of light. Therefore, by definition, you can't use it in regard to efferent vision.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

More blatant dishonesty on your part. "Information" is very clearly defined in both Information Theory and in Special Relativity. That you choose to remain ignorant of this so that you can continue to pretend that Lessans' notion of sight is compatible with either of them is very telling.

I'm just wondering how you know this definition is perfectly accurate? Regardless, I hope we can agree to disagree and leave it at that, before this discussion gets even more nasty than it already is.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You actually believe the test with the dog was valid? That's very telling.

There have been literally thousands of experiments -- from the structure of the eye to the physiology of neurons to direct experimentation with vision -- which demonstrate that vision is not efferent.

You've been provided with many examples.

I'm just wondering how you know this definition is perfectly accurate? Regardless, I hope we can agree to disagree and leave it at that, before this discussion gets even more nasty than it already is.

Because, you fool, you keep claiming that instantaneous, efferent vision does not violate Special Relativity. But it does violate Relativity, as information is defined in Relativity. Einstein was very, very clear on that, and nothing could possibly be more straightforward. And you'd know this if you'd take 30 minutes or so to educate yourself on the matter.

So you're either: lying outright, or demonstrating (yet again) that you don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe you have some "special" definition of "information" that does not violate Special Relativity. Peachy. But it's fundamentally dishonest to claim that instantaneous vision does not violate SR as information is defined in SR.

[LadyShea]

5th time to post this to you.

Either respond or concede your continuously bringing up the dogs is nothing but a red herring to get us off your back about relativity and causality

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You actually believe the test with the dog was valid?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I mean, seriously, have you ever seen a dog wag its tail in recognition when he sees a picture of his master? You don't need a dog to push a lever to prove that a dog is incapable of this. Why can't a dog recognize his master if the image is traveling to his eye? That's just one test of many that could cast some doubt as to whether afferent vision is true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You'll have to explain this, because what you said makes no sense.

According to Lessen's, dogs can't recognize people by only their facial features, and humans can. For the sake of this explanation let's assume he was correct.

If vision is efferent: dogs cannot do what humans do (recognize someone by facial features alone) even though humans also have efferent vision.

If vision is afferent: dogs cannot do what humans do (recognize someone by facial features alone) even though humans also have afferent vision.

So if the premise "Dogs cannot recognize people by only their facial features" is true, and the premise "Humans can recognize people by only their facial features" is also true, then whether sight is afferent or efferent doesn't seem to be the cause of the difference.

In both cases the difference would be seem to be related to differences in how the dog brain processes information, not in how they see.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I mean, seriously, have you ever seen a dog wag its tail in recognition when he sees a picture of his master? You don't need a dog to push a lever to prove that a dog is incapable of this. Why can't a dog recognize his master if the image is traveling to his eye? That's just one test of many that could cast some doubt as to whether afferent vision is true.

I've mentioned this before, but my old dog is entirely deaf. He does have a sense of smell, but that doesn't help when he's looking out the sealed window near the door with a glass screen door and weather seals.

Yet, he can both recognize when we come home from a walk, and recognize us through the car window when we drive by.

My other two puppies can recognize me through the window, but I like to highlight my old man, because he doesn't have any other sense clue to recognize us.

From my astute observations, I have come to the opposite conclusion of Lessans in regards to a dog's visual capabilities.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know of any experiments that have disproved efferent vision.

What makes you think that matters in the slightest?

Your awareness does not have any bearing on the truth of the matter, and everything involved on the topic of efferent vision, from the long history of the idea to its eventual disproving and dismissal and the evidence behind that, has been explained to you far more times than your lack of integrity has warranted.

You "don't know" any of this only because you choose to remain ignorant, simply for the sake of preserving the imagined sanctity of your father's pet project.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We cannot become conditioned with hearing, smelling, touching, or tasting (because they are senses) in the same way that we become conditioned with the eyes. For example, if we like a certain food, a person telling us the food tastes terrible doesn't change our opinion. If a person says a food is delicious, but we don't like it, our opinion doesn't change even if someone tells 1000 times that it tastes good.

If fear is associated with eating a particular food that we loved before, the food might become repulsive, but once the fear is gone, the original preference for that food comes back. This goes for any of the senses except for the eyes. Once the eyes are conditioned, because of a negative or positive association between a word and a face, you can't become unconditioned. You can take away the word, but the preference has been imprinted in the person's psyche. The word itself creates a standard, even though people call it a personal descriptor. How many people consider the Wicked Witch beautiful? This is an extreme example, but we can see from this example that there is a stratification system that we believe exists externally. After all, no one would argue that she is anything but ugly, and we can see this with our very eyes. And what's worse is when parents attach a face considered ugly and scare their children into good behavior by saying, "Pretty is as pretty does."

You may say that the majority of mankind would believe she is ugly because the majority of mankind likes symmetry and her face is asymmetrical. But this does not make her ugly in reality. She is different, and when the word is removed as well as any negativity associated with that face, you will see a more even distribution as to what is considered appealing. Just imagine how much better our world will be when people stop thinking of themselves as ugly, or not as pretty, or not worthy of a particular individual. And just imagine how many psychiatrists will be displaced because there will be no inferiority.

I asked you for evidence supporting your claim that the senses (other than sight) "cannot become conditioned to liking what we don't like, or not liking what we like". Instead of providing that evidence you provided several paragraphs of additional unsupported claims. Those claims are not evidence. Please provide evidence in support of your claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, there has to be confirmation that his observations are spot on. If you don't believe there is enough proof, then, as I said, more empirical testing needs to be done. If the eyes are proved to be efferent, then his explanation as to how we become conditioned makes perfect sense. It's as simple as that.

Again, I asked for evidence supporting your claims regarding the conditioning that is unique to sight. You still haven't offered any such evidence. If you have evidence supporting that claim then you can surely provide such evidence. Please do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not an easy thing to do, which is why I realize why you are skeptical. I really don't blame you for your skepticism because I am a skeptical person and would be the same way if I didn't see the veracity of this knowledge for myself. The only way to evaluate this knowledge is to read the book in its entirety. As you read carefully you can see the validity and soundness of his reasoning based on his observations. Obviously, these observations regarding human nature, conscience, and man's will, are not obvious, or they would have been seen by others by now. His mind was extremely analytical and he was able to tease out important details that others missed. So to answer your question, the only way that you can evaluate this knowledge objectively (aside from further empirical testing) is to read the book. You will be able to clearly identify how this knowledge works as it extends into every area of human relation and how it all ties together. Otherwise, the questions will never stop because people will not be able to see how this knowledge causes a 180 degree turnaround in human conduct.

Your comments with regard to Lessans' claims are non-responsive. Did you miss the part where I specifically stated I was not "asking about any particular statements by any particular person or persons. I am asking a general question with regard to statements that are subject to being evaluated as true or false"?

Please answer the question that I asked. To make it easy for you I will ask it again.

Please explain to me how you know that someone's "mathematical reasoning based on astute observation" is useful in determining whether a statement is right or wrong?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's the definition I am having a problem with. "Information" is a tricky word. I agree that no information can travel faster than the speed of light. The operative word is "travel". If nothing is traveling, then it cannot be traveling faster than the speed of light. Therefore, by definition, you can't use it in regard to efferent vision. In other words, you can't say "efferent vision is erroneous because that would mean information is traveling faster than the speed of light", when it doesn't fit the definition.

I wanted you to answer those questions individually, because you have to be giving a different answer (denying one of the things I said) in order for you to deny that information is travelling faster than the speed of light. But you won't get specific and answer which part it is that you take issue with.

I didn't give a specific definition of information. I asked you whether the fact that I am an American human located in a particular place on Earth who is male and has pale skin counts as information. I didn't ask you to define information precisely, I just asked you whether that counted as information and/or whether you agree that an observer on Rigel is learning this and thus acquiring information when they look at me through a telescope.

I don't see the need for a very specific definition of information, because I think those kinds of facts about me would probably be considered information according to any normal definition of information.

So which part do you deny?

Do you deny that those facts are information? Do you deny that the observer on Rigel is learning that information? Do you think, perhaps, that the observer on Rigel already knew this information before they looked at me, or what? Your answer to one of those four questions has to be different from what would be expected.

Get specific, don't hide behind "I disagree with your definition of information" which I didn't even give in the first place and which you yourself have not defined.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So you're either: lying outright, or demonstrating (yet again) that you don't know what you're talking about.

"A bit of both."

--Dean Keaton

--J. "Do I Make Myself Clear?" D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If no one wants to ask me questions regarding his first discovery, this thread is done ...

Oh, look! She's going away AGAIN!

When are you ACTUALLY going to go away, liar?

Oh, and peacegirl?

You said that "no information can travel faster than the speed of light."

That is what YOU said.

If no information can travel faster than the speed of light, then:

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE ON EARTH TO OBTAIN THE INFORMATION THAT THE SUN HAS BEEN TURNED ON IMMEDIATELY, WHEN GOD TURNS ON THE SUN, GIVEN THAT THE LIGHT OF THE SUN WILL NOT REACH THE GODDAMNED EARTH UNTIL 8.5 MINUTES AFTER GOD TURNS ON THE SUN?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for the links. I'll try my best to read the article, especially on the section where the photoreceptors are transduced into signals.

Ja, SURE you will! You were given this link some 200 pages ago, and you said back then that you couldn't be bothered reading it! Yet you ask people here to read your shitwit father's stupid book, which your own children won't read!