A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dude, she wouldn't even concede that seeing flashes of light conveying an understood message in Morse code would be a transfer of information using light only, and therefore instantaneous communication of information if we see the light in real time.

She doesn't care how light works.

I care very much how light works. How can you accuse me of not caring LadyShea when this whole time I've given my all to you.

[LadyShea]

No one said what? I asked you a very straightforward question.

I am asking you to explain another way your statements could be interpreted because nothing is coming to me

Once again, here is the question I would like you to answer

How can consciousness be generic and not individual unless you are considering it as something as separate and apart from an individual's brain?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you really know LadyShea if your premise that your ideas are based on are false? Just a thought.

I am convinced that the premise "consciousness is the product of a living brain only" is correct because we have mountains of hard evidence and data from medicine and neuroscience supporting the premise.

Reviewing evidence is a good way to learn things and come to informed opinions. Just a thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I care very much how light works. How can you accuse me of not caring LadyShea when this whole time I've given my all to you.

You haven't shown even once that you care how light works because your answers and statements regarding it almost exclusively require that it works some other way.

It's not hard to find this information, so if you really wanted to know you would go look.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The actual physical object of Jupiter cannot be seen or photographed, ONLY the light it is reflecting. And cameras ONLY record that light, not anything physical, because Jupiter is nothing but a ball of gas.

Are you retarded?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, I"m really not.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't read anything regarding SR in this passage.

Wow. Just, wow. How dumb does it get?

[LadyShea]

Why are you so angry and hatey david?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are you so angry and hatey david?

H8ters gotta h8.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I care very much how light works.

Prove it by answering this question

Is a person seeing light pulses in Morse code (which said person understands) a transfer of information using light only, and therefore instantaneous communication of information if we see that light in real time via efferent vision?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No one said what? I asked you a very straightforward question.

I am asking you to explain another way your statements could be interpreted because nothing is coming to me

Once again, here is the question I would like you to answer

How can consciousness be generic and not individual unless you are considering it as something as separate and apart from an individual's brain?

LadyShea, your extensive use of bold, italics and underlining indicates an extraordinary level of anger. In fact, one might say that you're too angry to communicate.

Why all the anger, hatred and meanness?

[LadyShea]

I sincerely and most deeply apologize if my methods of ensuring clarity and understanding were misconstrued as anger! It aggrieves me terribly to think upon the vapors it might have caused.

[Stephen Maturin]

[Doctor X]

My hovercraft is full of eels!

--J. "Bouncy! Bouncy!" D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dude, she wouldn't even concede that seeing flashes of light conveying an understood message in Morse code would be a transfer of information using light only, and therefore instantaneous communication of information if we see the light in real time.

She doesn't care how light works.

That is not true LadyShea. That is not the kind of information I am talking about. You keep leaving out the most imporant aspect in all of this: whether the lightwaves penetrate the optic nerve. Of course, conveying a message in Morse code would be a transfer of information seen at a different location (but in real time) and because light is finite there is a time delay. There's some kind of disconnect in here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know whether you're laughing with me or at me. I was actually joking about internet police, and boy I haven't heard the end of it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well then, you played it so incredibly straight you should be in Hollywood. Because it absolutely didn't sound like a joke, especially with the additional "how can we know what is true" stuff regarding analyzing information.

In fact, I am seriously tempted to call bullshit right now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an internet site says something, I thought that it was checked out by that site.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean by that site? The site owner is almost always the main or sole contributer

Right, but if he takes someone else's quote shouldn't he make sure that quote is accurate? I was trusting that the owner of the site would have determined that the quotes he used came from a legitimate source.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never thought that if someone said something, they must have posted the quote themselves.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You asked why the doctor quoted would have posted his opinion online, when I questioned if you had verified that the quotes you used in the book were accurately attributed. Shall I find your exact quote*?
[indent]*found it

LadyShea
You could, if you are worried, look up the people whose names are attached to the quotes you lifted, and see if they are okay with their quote and name being used. Dr. Charles E. Page (one of the quoted people) apparently has a practice in Durango, Colorado and his contact info is easily found through Google.

I could do that. But my question is how can a site owner post an opinion that isn't his, without knowing the source of that quote, and whether it's accurate? I took for granted that the quotes were accurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as time, it is always in relation to our units of measurement.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How we humans choose to measure time is related to us humans. Time itself exists objectively regardless if anyone is measuring it or not.

How can time exist when we only have the present. Yes, we can see changes through the passage of time, but we actually live in the moment. Therefore, time is objectively measured by our clocks, but it is still a manmade construct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But to say that time exists without humans to measure its passage is like saying time is conscious of itself.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, no, not at all. That's not even close to correct. Where did you get that idea?

Time exists with or without humans to measure it, just as the Universe exists with or without humans to observe it, and just as the Earth existed (and time passed) before there were humans. In fact, it is called spacetime for that reason, it cannot be separated from the workings of the Universe any more than gravity can be separated from the workings of the Universe.

If we only have the now, and the past and future are only a word relation in our memories, not in reality, then time itself doesn't really exist. Rather, we live in an eternal present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop making me look like an idiot. Thank you very much.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not me making you look like an idiot.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course, conveying a message in Morse code would be a transfer of information seen at a different location (but in real time) and because light is finite there is a time delay. There's some kind of disconnect in here.

Answer the question. I'll break it down into parts

1. Is a person seeing light pulses in Morse code (which said person understands) a transfer of information using light only?

2. If you answered yes to 1. does this therefore mean that instantaneous communication of information is possible if we see that light in real time via efferent vision?

You contradict yourself with this sentence

a transfer of information seen at a different location (but in real time) and because light is finite there is a time delay.

Are you seeing the light flashes, with your efferent eyes, in real time with no delay OR are you seeing the light flashes, with your efferent eyes, after the time delay of the light traveling to your location?

Both cannot be true at the same time. There is your disconnect

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, we cut out their viable living organs and remove viable living tissue for donation after they have been declared legally dead but aren't all the way dead. Why do you think brain dead people are kept on life support machines?

You're still settng up a dichotomy that is not part of the question. Whether an organ is transferred to another or not, the person who transferred that organ is a dead duck. He is no longer here in this world. We cannot be dead and alive at the same time LadyShea, so stop waffling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We either live our lives the best way we can, or we commit suicide. What other choice is there?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We can mentally check out and take no steps to sustain our lives or hasten our death.

That does not negate what I just said. Mentally checking out is a form of survival for some people.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not about nuances LadyShea. This is a straightforward question, and you keep dodging it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not a straightforward question, it is a simplistic one.

Then answer in a simplistic manner. Is there any other option other than living or dying? Please answer with a yes or no.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course, conveying a message in Morse code would be a transfer of information seen at a different location (but in real time) and because light is finite there is a time delay. There's some kind of disconnect in here.

Answer the question. I'll break it down into parts

1. Is a person seeing light pulses in Morse code (which said person understands) a transfer of information using light only?

Yes.

2. If you answered yes to 1. does this therefore mean that instantaneous communication of information is possible if we see that light in real time via efferent vision?

No. I never said that there isn't a transfer of information that we can see when it has traveled to a certain destination. But when we are looking directly with our eyes at the light source (not its destination), we see it in real time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You contradict yourself with this sentence

It's not a contradiction, but I don't know how to explain it any better.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you seeing the light flashes, with your efferent eyes, in real time with no delay OR are you seeing the light flashes, with your efferent eyes, after the time delay of the light traveling to your location?

You mean lightning? Yes, you would see a time delay of the light traveling to my location because it's a discharge of electricity that travels through space and time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Both cannot be true at the same time. There is your disconnect

Sorry, but that is a very different scenario than light boucing off of an object, carrying that wavelength to the eye, and interpreting it by the brain.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but if he takes someone else's quote shouldn't he make sure that quote is accurate?

Of course he/she should, but that doesn't mean he/she does. Unfortunately many people are sloppy, stupid, malicious, biased and/or have an agenda, and anyone can create and maintain a website where they post their slop, stupidity, maliciousness, biased and/or agenda driven content.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trusting that the owner of the site would have determined that the quotes he used came from a legitimate source.

Which, unfortunately, makes you a sloppy researcher and hopelessly naive and credulous. Yet you claim to be a skeptic?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But my question is how can a site owner post an opinion that isn't his, without knowing the source of that quote, and whether it's accurate? I took for granted that the quotes were accurate.

It's easy, you just type something from memory that may or may not be correctly remembered, type something you made up and attribute it to someone falsely or, in your case, copy something someone else said without researching if it is accurate.

Taking it for granted that the stuff that people you don't even know write or say is accurate or factual is just plain ridiculous. Do you believe every word of every book ever written? Add the internet-where anyone can say most anything they want as it's a huge free speech zone- and you're entering the realm of stupidity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can time exist when we only have the present. Yes, we can see changes through the passage of time, but we actually live in the moment. Therefore, time is objectively measured by our clocks, but it is still a manmade construct.

No, it isn't, you are wrong and you haven't bothered to try to inform yourself of the facts. Time is an important aspect of physics, so look there if you give a shit about learning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we only have the now, and the past and future are only a word relation in our memories, not in reality, then time itself doesn't really exist .

Humans' subjective experience of time isn't the only definition of time. Really either try to understand spacetime as it applies in physics or don't, but discussing it as if you have any idea what you are talking about makes you look ignorant.

I posted an hour long video of physicists discussing the nature of time, in laypersons terms, some pages back. Did you watch it?

I'm sorry that makes you sad, but your continued ignorant assertions are not my fault.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You did it again. That was me, not Kael.

Sorry.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought by now you would realize that his reasoning ability was far superior than many P.h.Ds and highly regarded scholars.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Why should we have realized that? There is nothing in his book or your defense of that book which suggests anything of the sort.

As long as this book is chopped up into parts, you will continue to think that.

Originally Posted by davidm

If Lessans said it, it's right, period!

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Indeed, peacegirl's entire presentation amounts to an extended argument from authority. What she fails to realize is that for an argument from authority to be persuasive it is necessary that the various disputants recognize the expertise of the authority in question. Unfortunately, for peacegirl, she is the only party in this discussion who recogizes Lessans as an expert authority. Nevertheless, she persists in citing him as if it were an established fact that he was the expert she believes him to be. It is like citing the Bible as an authority while trying to convice a panel of atheists that what the Bible says is true. She is trying to convice us that what Lessans says is true and her only evidence is Lessans' own words. She can do this until the cows come home and will still not work. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

He has proof though, even though you don't see it yet. This is not the same thing as quoting the Bible because the Bible is, for the most part, someone's interpretation of reality. If there was no proof in his observations, do you think I would be doing this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guarantee you, they won't put someone in the grave unless they know for sure he is dead.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Premature Burial

There could be mistakes made. If the person was buried alive; he wasn't dead. What a horrible thought. When his heart finally stops beating because he can't get any air; he dies. Back to "we can't be alive and dead at the same time."

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Answer the question. I'll break it down into parts

1. Is a person seeing light pulses in Morse code (which said person understands) a transfer of information using light only?

Yes.

2. If you answered yes to 1. does this therefore mean that instantaneous communication of information is possible if we see that light in real time via efferent vision?

No. I never said that there isn't a transfer of information that we can see when it has traveled to a certain destination. But when we are looking directly with our eyes at the light source (not its destination), we see it in real time.

It's not a contradiction, but I don't know how to explain it any better.

You mean lightning? Yes, you would see a time delay of the light traveling to my location because it's a discharge of electricity that travels through space and time.

Sorry, but that is a very different scenario than light boucing off of an object, carrying that wavelength to the eye, and interpreting it by the brain.

You have got to be fucking kidding me with this shit. Either you are disingenuously weaseling or you are too stupid to even be having this discussion. Which is it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course he/she should, but that doesn't mean he/she does. Unfortunately many people are sloppy, stupid, malicious, biased and/or have an agenda, and anyone can create and maintain a website where they post their slop, stupidity, maliciousness, biased and/or agenda driven content.

Which, unfortunately, makes you a sloppy researcher and hopelessly naive and credulous. Yet you claim to be a skeptic?

Not really. It just makes me a little too trusting, I guess.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But my question is how can a site owner post an opinion that isn't his, without knowing the source of that quote, and whether it's accurate? I took for granted that the quotes were accurate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's easy, you just type something from memory that may or may not be correctly remembered, type something you made up and attribute it to someone falsely or, in your case, copy something someone else said without researching if it is accurate.

They looked like direct quotes, but they might not have been. I concede.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Taking it for granted that the stuff that people you don't even know write or say is accurate or factual is just plain ridiculous. Do you believe every word of every book ever written? Add the internet-where anyone can say most anything they want as it's a huge free speech zone- and you're entering the realm of stupidity.

Of course I don't believe every book that's ever been written. But I have only been to the websites that I trust would not plagiarize or misrepresent what a person said. That doesn't justify not checking out the source.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can time exist when we only have the present. Yes, we can see changes through the passage of time, but we actually live in the moment. Therefore, time is objectively measured by our clocks, but it is still a manmade construct.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it isn't, you are wrong and you haven't bothered to try to inform yourself of the facts. Time is an important aspect of physics, so look there if you give a shit about learning.

We cannot live in the past, can we? We cannot live in the future, can we? I'll leave it at that. I know David thinks differently, but I don't believe in time machines.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we only have the now, and the past and future are only a word relation in our memories, not in reality, then time itself doesn't really exist .

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Humans' subjective experience of time isn't the only definition of time. Really either try to understand spacetime as it applies in physics or don't, but discussing it as if you have any idea what you are talking about makes you look ignorant.

This is not about our subjective experience of time. How can time exist in actuality if all we have is the present? Yes, we see changes in objective reality as [time] moves forward, but at a deeper level the present [that moment in time that our consciousness is experiencing right now] is all we really have.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I posted an hour long video of physicists discussing the nature of time, in laypersons terms, some pages back. Did you watch it?

I watched most of it. I'd like to watch it again. Do you have page number? The thread is moving so quickly I can't spend too much time on any one post or I'll get too far behind. I'm not trying to dodge anything.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'm sorry that makes you sad, but your continued ignorant assertions are not my fault.

They aren't ignorant at all, and hopefully you'll see this one day. But I won't hold my breath, lest I die and am no longer here.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unfortunately many people are sloppy, stupid, malicious, biased and/or have an agenda, and anyone can create and maintain a website where they post their slop, stupidity, maliciousness, biased and/or agenda driven content.

This is something that even peacegirl could do. She might, in fact, be quite good at it. She could even set up a moderated forum where she would only have to talk with people who were willing to read Lessans' book according to his directives.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There could be mistakes made. If the person was buried alive; he wasn't dead. What a horrible thought. When his heart finally stops beating because he can't get any air; he dies. Back to "we can't be alive and dead at the same time."

I didn't post that