A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans claim about sight is that they eyes are efferent. The brain look out of them as if they are windows, and that since they do not rely on light entering the eyes to be converted into images by the brain, there is no speed of light delay when we see things.

So, he insists we are seeing the sun in "real time" not as it was 8 minutes ago. He also stated that if someone were on Rigel looking at Earth through a super high powered telescope, he would see the happenings in Earth time, rather than the happenings of 800 or so years ago we would expect due to the distance.

When I have used thought experiments such as seeing a distant light on the ocean flashing SOS in Morse code, peacegirl insists we see the light instantly, there would be no X nanosecond delay in receiving that information. Apparently neither cameras nor telescopes require the light from the object to reach them either.

Why don't you get that these are two different phenomena LadyShea. Why are you clumping them together? I never said that I would not see Mose code in a delay. But that in no way contradicts efferent vision. To repeat for those who are so sure of themselves: There's absolutely no conflict with his claims unless you tell me that my eyes see this in a delay. They don't. They see Morse code as it is happening in real time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was trying to point out that this would make instantaneous communication via light possible, that is a necessary consequence of Lessans ideas about instant seeing. She handwaved away all examples.

Never did I handwave away the consequence of his claim. Nothing about Morse code disrupts his claim. Why are you bringing this up unless you don't understand the first thing about efferent vision?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And as I've explained, in this discussion between you and I, information transfer is nothing more than you at point A gaining information from point B, via your eyes...which is what seeing is.

Where have you looked? What have you studied? Biology-including anatomy and neuroscience- as well as optics and physics all have mountains of data and results you would need to analyze before positing an alternative.

LadyShea, I will repeat that this is not mandatory if someone sees a relationship that confirms one plus one equals two. How many times does someone have to reaffirm that what science is teaching is wrong? In any proof, a person does not have to go back and disprove all the theories that are out there. That would take forever, and it's not necessary. All that has to be proven is the premise that everything else depends.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh, BTW, peacegirl also believes that time doesn't exist except as a human mental construct.

Cool.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Yeah. It's called cognitive dissonance. Which is a thing that renders science pointless.

She has also been accused of 'Willful Ignorance', and that is one of the more polite references that have been made about her. The other things she has been called are much more colorful, mostly by Davidm, His vocabulary is a bit better than some of us.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I will repeat that this is not mandatory if someone sees a relationship that confirms one plus one equals two. How many times does someone have to reaffirm that what science is teaching is wrong? In any proof, a person does not have to go back and disprove all the theories that are out there. That would take forever, and it's not necessary. All that has to be proven is the premise that everything else depends.

You said you "don't see" the empirical evidence against efferent vision, I said that's because you haven't looked, and now you have confirmed that the reason you don't see the empirical evidence is because you won't look at it.

Lessans offered no evidence at all for efferent sight

Quit acting like what you are doing is in any way, shape, or form scientific.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I will repeat that this is not mandatory if someone sees a relationship that confirms one plus one equals two. How many times does someone have to reaffirm that what science is teaching is wrong? In any proof, a person does not have to go back and disprove all the theories that are out there. That would take forever, and it's not necessary. All that has to be proven is the premise that everything else depends.

How do you intend to go about proving that because all experiment tells us otherwise.

If all science is just a grand illusion there is no point trying to disprove anything, because obviously science being wrong means any empirical evidence will tell you the wrong thing. Do you see how pointless saying over arching things like that are. Science is wrong but not about everything. Scientific nihilism is rather self defeating.

[thedoc]

Oh, BTW, Sidhe, welcome to the fray, It will be nice to have another member grounded in science, but for my part it will need to be in plain english, I never got far enough with the math to do any good.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Oh, BTW, Sidhe, welcome to the fray, It will be nice to have another member grounded in science, but for my part it will need to be in plain english, I never got far enough with the math to do any good.

Ah don't worry me either, I've only just started studying really.

[LadyShea]

Lessans extended his idea of efferent vision into an assertion that we see instantaneously. He clumped them together not me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that I would not see Mose code in a delay.

You said we would see the distant flashing light instantly. You said it multiple times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that in no way contradicts efferent vision.

Real time seeing is not possible unless Special Relativity is wrong and information can be transfered instantaneously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's absolutely no conflict with his claims unless you tell me that my eyes see this in a delay. They don't. They see Morse code as it is happening in real time.

Then you are claiming that instantaneous communication of information is possible, and that goes against the laws of physics.


And around and around because you don't get it. How many posts this time, peacegirl?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Never did I handwave away the consequence of his claim. Nothing about Morse code disrupts his claim. Why are you bringing this up unless you don't understand the first thing about efferent vision?

You said They see Morse code as it is happening in real time.. That is faster than light communication, and that is impossible according to the laws of physics.

[LadyShea]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said you "don't see" the empirical evidence against efferent vision, I said that's because you haven't looked, and now you have confirmed that the reason you don't see the empirical evidence is because you won't look at it.

I have looked, and there's only conjecture, flimsy argument, and unreliable empirical studies.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans offered no evidence at all for efferent sight

Quit acting like what you are doing is in any way, shape, or form scientific.

I didn't say he used the scientific method. I said he used astute observation, which is an epidemiological method of finding a possible truth.

[Doctor X]

Then there is that whole FAIL of claiming sight is "efferent."

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans extended his idea of efferent vision into an assertion that we see instantaneously. He clumped them together not me.

You said we would see the distant flashing light instantly. You said it multiple times.

Real time seeing is not possible unless Special Relativity is wrong and information can be transfered instantaneously.

Then you are claiming that instantaneous communication of information is possible, and that goes against the laws of physics.


And around and around because you don't get it. How many posts this time, peacegirl?

You said They see Morse code as it is happening in real time.. That is faster than light communication, and that is impossible according to the laws of physics.

I can't believe you're still on this. If we're seeing the Mose code after it has traversed a certain distance, we are seeing it just like we would see water that has come from a larger river. But WE ARE SEEING THE MORSE CODE (OR THE DROP OF WATER) AS IT IS IN REAL TIME. Arghhhhhhhh!!!!!!

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have looked, and there's only conjecture, flimsy argument, and unreliable empirical studies.

Really, all of physics, biology, and optics offer nothing but conjecture and flimsy argument and unreliable studies? How did you determine this to be the case? What methods and knowledge did you use to judge the validity of 100 years worth of evidence from thousands of scientists?

I didn't say he used the scientific method. I said he used astute observation, which is an epidemiological method of finding a possible truth.

I know he didn't use scientific methodology, yet he happily claimed scientific validity and that his discoveries were "scientific", as have you by calling it an "undeniable law of nature" and also claiming it can be empirically tested.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But WE ARE SEEING THE MORSE CODE (OR THE DROP OF WATER) AS IT IS IN REAL TIME. Arghhhhhhhh!!!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

How do you intend to go about proving that because all experiment tells us otherwise.

I'm not sure what experiment you're talking about. Most are theories that have been accepted as fact.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

If all science is just a grand illusion there is no point trying to disprove anything, because obviously science being wrong means any empirical evidence will tell you the wrong thing. Do you see how pointless saying over arching things like that are. Science is wrong but not about everything. Scientific nihilism is rather self defeating.

I never said science was wrong. Science is the best method of finding truth. Empirical evidence can tell us whether something works or not. After all, if we couldn't actually land men on the moon, then all the scientific data would mean nothing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

NO IT DOES NOT. I STILL THINK YOU'RE CONFUSING LIGHT THAT IS TRAVELING (AND THEREFORE THERE IS A TIME DELAY), AND IMAGES THAT ARE SEEN IN REAL TIME.

[LadyShea]

I am not confusing anything.

Real time seeing = instantaneous communication = instantaneous information transfer = simultaneity

[davidm]

Let me give Sidhe the Cliff’s Notes version of the book under discussion to get him up to speed.

1. Man’s Will Is Not Free.

2. The Two-Sided Equation. This is very, VERY important, a mathematical truth even though there is no math in it.

3. The eyes are not a sense organ, even though they are.

4. We see instantaneously, in “real time,” even though the theory of relativity shows that this is impossible.

5. “Real time” seeing does not contradict the theory of relativity, even though it does.

6. Some stuff about how conscience operates.

7. Even though Hitler killed a bunch of Jews he wasn’t to blame for doing so and besides, all those Jews that were killed are still alive, even though they are other people.

8 In the Golden Age, there will be no poverty, crime, violence or evil, and there will be many, many fewer Queers, if there are any Queers at all.

9. In the Golden Age, people will wear a lot less clothing and begin fucking on the spot just as soon as they meet. They will then stay together for life, BUT — and this is very important:

10. They will sleep in separate beds.

11. A little of the ol’ rumpy pumpy on the dinner table is just fine, just so long as the yung’uns aren’t present.

12. To wake a child is to blame him for sleeping.

13. Doctors are bad.

14. Vaccination is bad.

15. In the Golden Age, Mom will undertake a special study of cooking, and if Dad likes spaghetti and meatballs on Monday, then by God, Mom will produce the best gol-durned spaghetti and meatballs wot the world has ever seen!

16. The author wrote letters to Presidents Nixon and Carter demanding an audience with them. Both letters were ignored. The author ended up suing President Carter for refusing to meet with him.

17. The author had a seventh-grade education, but people with PhDs have the minds of chimpanzees compared with him.

18. The non compos mentis person who started this thread is the author’s daughter. Her own children won't read her father's book, but she expects everyone else to.

OK?

Now you are up to speed.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Then there is that whole FAIL of claiming sight is "efferent."

--J.D.

That's what's under scrutiny Doctor X.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not confusing anything.

Real time seeing = instantaneous communication = instantaneous information transfer = simultaneity

Words mean nothing LadyShea unless they coincide with reality. You could just as easily say Real time seeing = no time delay = no transfer of information through space/time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Words mean nothing LadyShea unless they coincide with reality.

Do tell!