A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

No, he never boasted, he just demanded an audience with 2 sitting Presidents and sued one of them for refusing.

[LadyShea]

The proof that man's will is not free is that, under the changed conditions, no man can hurt another with a first blow. This can be tested only when we create the new world conditions that allow this fact to come forth. If will was free, we could hurt someone in spite of the new conditions. That is impossible. Don't you see why it's an undeniable principle? If man could hurt others under these conditions, it wouldn't be a universal law.

So it can only be proven true if we implement it to see if it is true.

Really, you think this is a rational argument?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can use the scientific method; it's just that it's not easy to set up an experiment, but it can be done. It is falsifiable as I've said many times. I would be so happy if this could finally be resolved, one way or another. But tests have to be reliable. I'm not going to let bias ruin it. Do you not think some of these empirical studies aren't biased, skewing, or misinterpreting, the answers that they are looking for?

If that's the case you have your answer, set up a test and make it falsifiable then. Or don't and make it not even wrong. I have stated a contention that you cannot prove this with science, you now have to destroy that assertion. I don't think it's empirically possible. Convince me it is.

Digression and an anecdote I once suggested that someone's ideas on intelligent design were not even wrong, and they took it as a compliment. I was amused anyway.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe I answered this question, but I'll repeat: It was a process of reading, studying, and years and years of careful analysis that brought him to these findings. Other people who might have read and studied the same things as he did might not have been able to make the same discovery. He had a tremendous ability to see relationships that others did not.

Where is this in Lessans' book? Where in the book is the who, what, where, when, or how he made these observations?

[liminus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will continue to see a red light. Look, you don't seem to understand what I mean by seeing images in real time. This has nothing to do with light that is traveling toward me. Efferent vision doesn't contradict your example in any way, shape, or form.

If I continue to see red light then I am not seeing in "real time". I am seeing light that was emitted in the past. The image my brain creates via my eyes is an image of the past. There is always light travelling towards you when you see something.

Now, please answer my follow-up question: If (as you say) I can see the sun right now in "real time", then simultaneously there is 8-minute-old light streaming into my eyes from the sun.

Let's say a huge disc appears in front of the sun, just a few miles above its surface. According to you, I would see the sun blacked out instantly. However, for the next 8 minutes the light from the pre-block sun will still be travelling towards me, streaming into my eyes.

So what do I see? The sun? Or a blacked-out sun?

Thanks.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Digression and an anecdote I once suggested that someone's ideas on intelligent design were not even wrong, and they took it as a compliment. I was amused anyway.

Well to elaborate on your digression, unless I misunderstand your intent, 'Intelligent Design' is usually used to discredit evolution, but in fact is is irrevelant since God (usually the author of Intelligent design) could have used either spontanious creation or evolution to achieve the end results. So Intelligent design being true or not, does not settle that debate, and I would guess we have a similar situation with decline and fall, the cause does not necessarily define the means.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So the only way to test it is to implement it worldwide? Basically the only way to prove it true is to assume it's true? That's not very practical, and certainly not scientific or mathematical.

In fact, that's absurd.

It's not absurd at all. He has demonstrated...

1. Man's will is not free, and why.

2. Conscience works in a very predictable way.

3. No one can make anyone do something against their will (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink).

When you put these principles together, you get the two-sided equation, even though it's not math per se. Once it is understood that these principles are undeniable, we don't have to test them to make sure they work. We could set up a simulated environment, but that wouldn't be necessary.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it won't be proven. You are deluded. And now you are raving. Are you going to sue someone out of frustration?

LadyShea, now you're acting silly. How can you say it won't be proven? How do you know? I'm not raving for no reason. I don't like when people come off so cock sure of themselves that this man has nothing of value when they don't know the first thing about this discovery. It's upsetting to me which is why I responded in caps. BTW, I am not deluded and I don't sue out of frustration.

[Doctor X]

"Intelligent design" was a replacement word for "creationism," specifically "biblical creationism," after SCOTUS deemed it a violation of the First Amendment to teach creationism in school.

I merely remind creationists of whatever stripe that the Earth is not, unfortunately, flat. Few insist it is to the point of a peacegirl. They will try to claim the texts do not describe the Earth as flat, but they will FAIL, wail, gnash their tooths, and, eventually, come to worship me.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I just think people in arrogant glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I am not wrong. Should I fake it just to please you?

Just because I'm sure of myself doesn't make me arrogant. You shouldn't fake it just to please me, but you should try to better understand what you are refuting before telling me I'm wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by liminus

Hey guys, thanks for the welcome!

Some spontaneous googling brought me here; I remember PG from her 10,000-post thread "New Discovery" on IIDB (now FRDB) 3 years ago. I was randomly reading bits of it the other day and thought I'd see if PG was still going on another forum, and of course discovered this latest gargantuan train-wreck. I haven't read much of it but random sampling has confirmed that the conversation is virtually identical to the one I remember.

I wasn't heavily involved in the FRDB thread but I've read the book (except for the elusive 10th chapter) and I've seen people try, over the span of about 9 months in the end, to explain to PG how light and sight work. I don't really care about the rest of it, it's the insane denial of completely understood physics (and biology) that I find fascinating.

Also, Hello Peacegirl! Dunno if you remember me but I could hardly forget you! How are you? Have you actually been doing this over and over on various forums for the last 3 years since FRDB? I know you were at it for at least 3 years before that. It's like you're frozen in time or something.

I would like you to take a look at my last post (#8799 on p352) and have a go at answering it, if you don't mind. Red light? Blue light? Purple? Ta very much.

Hi Liminus! I'm glad you found me. To answer your first question, yes, I have been doing this on and off since I compiled this book in 2003, but this is the last time. This has been so difficult, even though I've gotten better at answering the questions that have been thrown at me. When I first came online, I was totally unprepared for the unwelcome responses I got. My skin hasn't gotten any thicker, sorry to say. It still hurts that people are not taking this discovery seriously. When I leave here I'm going to create my own website so I can avoid the vitriol and expound on Chapter One and Two (I never was able to do this after all these pages), and maybe have a fighting chance to show where this knowledge is undeniable and can accomplish what was never before possible; a world of peace and brotherhood between all men.

We already spent hundreds of pages on the senses, and got nowhere, so I really don't want to repeat that again. I realized that no one will entertain the possibility that the eyes are efferent unless more empirical testing is done. The afferent model of sight states that lightwaves are being transduced into electro-chemical signals that then go to the brain to be interpreted. That's a fallacy if Lessans is correct. That doesn't mean I wouldn't see a red light traveling toward me first, and then the blue light, which would definitely be a breach of physics. I hope you stick around because we need new blood in here if this thread is to continue in any positive direction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seriously peacegirl, you wonder why I am concerned about your stress levels should you continue posting here?

You assume we are super angry and feeling hatred towards you, and really nobody here EXCEPT YOU is feeling any such strong emotions.

We are bemused mostly, along with some frustration at our valid questions and critiques bouncing off a stone edifice.

Do you all believe I'm the village idiot? If it wasn't for natural.atheist, I think I would have left the thread because not one person came to my defense until he came on the scene. Thanks NA. Sometimes you need someone on your side, even if it's just to say thanks for your efforts.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because I'm sure of myself doesn't make me arrogant. You shouldn't fake it just to please me, but you should try to better understand what you are refuting before telling me I'm wrong.

And vice versa

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hiya Liminus. I have links to PG's various Internet interactions on pages 1-2 of this thread. I think thedoc came here after interacting with her somewhere else too.

Unlike IIDB/FRDB and other forums, we don't close threads. We also don't censor, edit, or ban people (except for posting illegal stuff, commercial spam, or divulging private information). peacegirl seems to have a self control problem in that she feels this thread is a lost cause, a waste of time, and hopeless...yet is compelled to respond daily

I was a mod at IIDB 100 or so years ago, but left before PG posted there

I didn't know you were a moderator. Why did you leave IIDB?

It's true that I'm stressed out, but I feel compelled to correct all the misunderstanding and mischaracterization that has gone on in here. I guess that's why I keep coming back. Unfortunately, the more I try the deeper the hole gets.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hi Liminus, how ya doing? I'm glad you found me. To answer your first question, yes, I have been doing this on and off since I compiled this book in 2003, but this is the last time. This has been so difficult, even though I've gotten better at answering the questions that have been thrown at me.

You mean, you were worse at answering questions in the past? Is that humanly possible?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

There are people here who do understand the science you are welcome to convince me if you like. Showing me some experiments would be a start. What experiments have you or anyone done?

LadyShea and others have found experiments that prove dogs can see their master from a picture (which would mean the image of their master is entering their eye), but none of these experiments are 100% reliable in my estimation.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

eventually, come to worship me.
--J.D.

Good for you, Let me know when the party starts.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea and others have found experiments that prove dogs can see their master from a picture (which would mean the image of their master is entering their eye), but none of these experiments are 100% reliable in my estimation.

Of course, nothing is 100 percent reliable for her royal higness, who knows absolutely nothing about science and wouldn't know an experiment if it bit her in the ass.

There hundreds if not thousands of experiments done every day that rule out real-time seeing. Every time you go to an optometerist, real-time seeing is ruled out. Every GPS device in use rules it out. The operation of high-energy particle accelerators rules it out. The observations of eclipses rules it out. We have shown all this to you throughout hundreds of pages, and here you are, ever the dipshit, going "derp!"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

You mean, you were worse at answering questions in the past? Is that humanly possible?

You need to remember that she is baseing her answers on the book, It shouldn't be too hard from that to see how bad the answers could be. Any improvement would be from borrowing from the objections to try and twist it to her line of thought.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I suggest President Obama. He's all distracted over the debt ceiling kerfuffle at the moment, so he might forget he's being sued and fail to file an answer. Hellooooo, default judgment!

There's going to be no default judgment against Obama. He has enough on his shoulders.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am the judge of this work because I've read it many times and understand it; you haven't read this book even once. Your opinion isn't worth a can of beans.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You may be an expert on Lessans work but you are not an expert in biology or physics, both of which are relevant to Lessans claims. Lacking expertise in the relevant sciences means you lack the ability to accurately judge their relevance to your father's claims.

You fail to understand that he came to this finding indirectly. He didn't have to be a biology or physics expert to know that his observations were correct. But I realize that more empirical testing will be necessary for anyone to take him seriously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you already. Under changed conditions no one in the entire world (thus, a universal law) could desire to strike someone with a first blow. THIS CAN BE TESTED EMPIRICALLY BUT IT'S NOT EASY TO COME BY BECAUSE WE'RE STILL IN A FREE WILL ENVIRONMENT. IF WILL WAS FREE, THE TEST WOULD FAIL.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In short, your claim is that Lessans' ideas have the potential to transform the world but this can only be proven by their actually transforming the world.

It's similar to sending someone into space. How do we know the astronaut is going to get to his destination? Because of mathematical principles that have exact precision. The same goes here. We can project these principles into the future and know that we're going to reach our destination because these principles are mathematical (undeniable).

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I have a used car I would very much like to sell to you. Considering that it has been parked in my corn crib for the past ten years you may reasonably be skeptical about its condition. However, I assure you that it is a perfectly functioning automobile. This fact can easily be confirmed once you have purchased the vehicle from me. If it works you will know that I was telling you the truth. Cash in advance, please.

This analogy is shortsighted. I am not assuring anyone in the face of contradictory evidence. I am extending knowledge that is verifiable in every way.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

It's not absurd at all. He has demonstrated...

1. Man's will is not free, and why.

2. Conscience works in a very predictable way.

3. No one can make anyone do something against their will (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink).

When you put these principles together, you get the two-sided equation, even though it's not math per se. Once it is understood that these principles are undeniable, we don't have to test them to make sure they work. We could set up a simulated environment, but that wouldn't be necessary.

Without tests they are deniable. Conscience doesn't work in a predictable way at all

[liminus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hi Liminus, how ya doing? I'm glad you found me. To answer your first question, yes, I have been doing this on and off since I compiled this book in 2003, but this is the last time.

I am astonished by your tenacity.

This has been so difficult, even though I've gotten better at answering the questions that have been thrown at me. When I first came online, I was totally unprepared for the unwelcome responses I got. My skin hasn't gotten any thicker, sorry to say.

Well I can't help you with that. I don't want to sound like I'm lecturing you, but from what I've read of this thread and what I remember, you seem to have a hard time understanding the phenomenon of skepticism.

There are many, many people in this world (myself included) who react to every new idea with skepticism. What I mean by that is that when I hear a new idea, I don't consider its merits first. The first thing I look for is problems. The reason that I do this is because this method has proven itself to be an excellent barometer of the bullshit->brilliant scale. That's all people have been doing with Lessans' ideas; deliberately looking for problems, however you seem to react extremely defensively when this happens.

If I come up with an idea and people point out problems, I (try to) take criticisms on board and adjust my idea accordingly. I would certainly never claim to have an "undeniable" idea or any kind of final truth. The reason for this is that every single idea in human history has been shown to be incomplete or problematic. To keep within the bounds of what I know best (physics), there are problems with both quantum mechanics and relativity, even though these theories are mind-blowingly awesome at describing the universe with ridiculous, almost unbelievable precision.

Unfortunately the problems with Lessans' ideas of sight are not problems that intersect with other extant problems. They are problems that intersect with areas of science where there are no problems. We already know how light and sight work. There is no more testing to be done. There is no ambiguity. Indeed, if Lessans' "model" of sight were correct, it would destroy the theory of electromagnetism. Not just alter it, not just revise it, but destroy it. We already know that the theory of electromagnetism cannot be destroyed. It is incomplete and will need revision in the future, but the kind of total rewriting your ideas would demand is just out of the question. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you just don't (you can't possibly) have a clue of how wrong his sight "model" is, or you would have said so to him yourself.

It still hurts that people are not taking this discovery seriously. When I leave here I'm going to create my own website so I can avoid the vitriol and expound on Chapter One and Two (I never was able to do this after all these pages), and maybe have a fighting chance to show where this knowledge is undeniable and can accomplish what was never before possible; a world of peace and brotherhood between all men.

OK I'm going to go back to skepticism again. Imagine you were one of us; you'd never heard of Lessans or any of this stuff. You must, surely, be aware of all the various attempts by humans in history to accomplish the audacious utopia of which you speak. Content aside, the intent is nothing new. Every previous attempt has failed. Every attempt at utopia has been found to be flawed and/or misguided and/or wishful thinking and/or based on sheer ignorance. Are you genuinely surprised you are met with skepticism? Especially when Lessans was just clearly utterly ignorant of the physics of light but you insist that all of his claims must be perfectly correct. Seriously Janis, can you not hear the preacher in yourself?

We already spent hundreds of pages on the senses, and got nowhere, so I really don't want to repeat that again.

Well, that's all I'm interested in. I'm interested in it, not because I care two fucks either way whether Lessans' ideas on free will etc were correct, but because I know, with a certainty that I don't think even you can imagine, that this particular aspect of his concept is wrong, and easily demonstrably so. Indeed it is demonstrated to be wrong by billions of informal experiments carried out every day by humans, in the fields of optics, astronomy, cosmology, electronics and magnetism and high-energy physics, let alone opthalmology and general medecine and surgery.

I'm not a philosophically minded guy and in fact I reject the possibility, utility and indeed desirability of anything describable as "utopia". I would fight against it if it came, for reasons too extended to go into now. I am an empiricist, a rationalist, and I would absolutely love to free your mind from the chains that Lessans' work has cast around it. Physics is a beautiful, almost spiritual (although I hate that word) science and you are missing out on a major part of the human experience by denying it, and you are denying all of it by sticking to Lessans' "model" of sight, although you do not understand why because you simply do not know enough about the subject, as is clear from your writing.

I realized that no one will entertain the possibility that the eyes are efferent unless more empirical testing is done.

We don't need to do this, Janis. There has never been a test and there never will be, to distinguish between afferent and efferent vision. The reason for this is because we don't need to.

We know how light manifests itself as energy packets or quanta.
We know how fast light travels.
We know how photons are both emitted and absorbed by matter.
We also know that photons are the force-carrier particle for the electromagnetic force, a theory which underpins virtually all modern technology and could never have been formulated were Lessan's ideas correct
We know how the eye's lens focuses light.
We know how the receptors of the retina are stimulated by photons.
We know how that stimulation effects signals sent down neural pathways.
We know how those neural pathways lead to the visual cortex.

It's hard to think of a good analogy, but it's like you are arguing that we don't really breathe, or that we don't really reproduce. It's that fundamental.

The afferent model of sight states that lightwaves are being transduced into electro-chemical signals that then go to the brain to be interpreted. That's a fallacy if Lessans is correct.

It is correct and we know it is correct. I can show you how we know that if you are willing to listen.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't see a red light traveling toward me first, and then the blue light, which would definitely be a breach of physics.

If you continue to see the red light in my example after the light switches to blue, then you cannot be seeing in real time. It really is that simple. Think about it.

I hope you stick around because we need new blood in here if this thread is to continue in any positive direction.

I'm only interested in the light/sight business I'm afraid as like I said, I am uninterested in and indeed opposed to, concepts of "utopia". Neverthless I look forward to any productive dialogue we may have in the future.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by liminus

I am an empiricist, a rationalist, and I would absolutely love to free your mind from the chains that Lessans' work has cast around it.

Oh, good luck with that!

One of the members of this board is a biologist who teaches at a college. He wrote a 35-page essay for Her Royal Highness detailing EXACTLY how we see, and how light interacts with the eye, down to the atomic level. Her Royal Highness refused to read it.

That is how much she values truth and honesty. She hasn't a truthful or honest impulse in her. Did she know she is selling her daddy's pile of trash over the Internet at $39.95 a pop?