A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

And a very real possibility it doesn't exist. Hence the falsifiable criteria that makes any theory a theory, it cannot be true, just empirical.

Not even wrong: a conjecture that cannot be tested empirically and thus is and always will be pure sepculation
Hypothesis: unsupported conjecture that is testable
weak or tentative theory: corroborated hypothesis by testing and peer review etc.
Strong theory: corroborated by many independent scientists and taken as a consensus, eg evolution
Law: A theory that has no observable indications to the contrary, eg gravity, the law that what goes up must come down or of attraction etc, relativity, no mass object can travel or propagate at c. A law is not weaker or stronger than another theory it just is.

I don't know what you're getting at.

[seebs]

If you can't deal with learning the terminology of a field before trying to use that terminology, because being told what words mean hurts your feelings so much you can't talk to someone anymore...

I don't think you're ready for "a revolution in thought". You need to get up to the sort of baseline norm of functional adulthood and basic maturity first.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by seebs

If you can't deal with learning the terminology of a field before trying to use that terminology, because being told what words mean hurts your feelings so much you can't talk to someone anymore...

I don't think you're ready for "a revolution in thought". You need to get up to the sort of baseline norm of functional adulthood and basic maturity first.

This thread is now so huge that there's one page per day for an entire (non-leap) year. If peacegirl were willing and able to learn anything about the things that she (or her father) criticizes, she would've almost surely done so by now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

If you can't deal with learning the terminology of a field before trying to use that terminology, because being told what words mean hurts your feelings so much you can't talk to someone anymore...

I don't think you're ready for "a revolution in thought". You need to get up to the sort of baseline norm of functional adulthood and basic maturity first.

Who are you to tell me what I have to do. Just leave seebs, and move on to better things.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Goliath

This thread is now so huge that there's one page per day for an entire (non-leap) year. If peacegirl were willing and able to learn anything about the things that she (or her father) criticizes, she would've almost surely done so by now.

Goliath, I'm still waiting for an apology for calling me a vapid cunt.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Goliath, I'm still waiting for an apology for calling me a vapid cunt.

By all means, keep on waiting.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Goliath, I'm still waiting for an apology.

I'm a human being who needs to be treated with respect.

I wouldn't recomend that you hold your breath waiting. Usually people are treated with courtesy on first meeting, respect needs to be earned and you have not earned it. Your posts have been disrespectful to others, so what goes around, comes around.

[seebs]

dup post

[seebs]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who are you to tell me what I have to do.

I'm not telling you what you have to do.

I'm telling you that what you are doing right now is making you unhappy, and will keep making you unhappy. Either do something else, or be someone else. The person you are now will always be made unhappy by the thing you are doing now.

Just leave seebs, and move on to better things.

Because that will help somehow? Certainly, if you could just get everyone on the forum to stop posting in your thread, you'd be happy... Wait! They have a technology for this. It's called a "blog". Maybe you should start a blog, and disable comments! Then you can post anything you want without having your feelings hurt.

But if you post here, you're gonna get the sorts of responses people get here, and if that is so upsetting for you that you can't talk to people anymore, and you have to tell people to leave your thread... Well, continuing to do it is sorta stupid, isn't it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by seebs

... Well, continuing to do it is sorta stupid, isn't it?

You seem to have Peacegirl figured out.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't even understand your post Sidhe. Your really hurt my feelings. I'm sorry, I can't talk to you anymore

I did? how did that happen? Shrugs*

By the way the term not even wrong is attributed to several Scientists, Dirac, Pauli etc. But these days is most famously attributed to the book Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law by Peter Woit a Physicist and Lecturer of Maths . Just AAMOI.

The argument mostly being that since it isn't even testable or makes no testable predictions it isn't even a theory etc it's not even wrong.

String theory is the only game in town in physics departments these days. But echoing Lee Smolin's forthcoming The Trouble with Physics (Reviews, July 24), Woit, a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, points out—again and again—that string theory, despite its two decades of dominance, is just a hunch aspiring to be a theory. It hasn't predicted anything, as theories are required to do, and its practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they're willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors. The first half of Woit's book is a tightly argued, beautifully written account of the development of the standard model and includes a history of particle accelerators that will interest science buffs. When he gets into the history of string theory, however, his pace accelerates alarmingly, with highly sketchy chapters. Reading this in conjunction with Smolin's more comprehensive critique of string theory, readers will be able to make up their own minds about whether string theory lives up to the hype.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

If you can't deal with learning the terminology of a field before trying to use that terminology, because being told what words mean hurts your feelings so much you can't talk to someone anymore...

I don't think you're ready for "a revolution in thought". You need to get up to the sort of baseline norm of functional adulthood and basic maturity first.

You don't even know me seebs, so please don't comment on my abilities.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Goliath

By all means, keep on waiting.

I will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It doesn't "rule out" efferent vision. Besides, that's not what I asked you. I asked how efferent vision explains the physiology of this fish's eye.

The same way afferent vision would except reverse.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I thought about you when I heard this, because the eyes of this fish are explained nearly perfectly if you subscribe to the scientific theory of vision. The cones in each pupil are adapted to best utilize the available wavelengths of light.

I am not refuting the scientific theory of vision except for the direction in which we see. The fish's four eyes doesn't change anything because the brain can see through each cone.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Like I've said many times before, for any scientist to take any interest in Lessans ideas on vision, it needs to explain the physiology of this fish at least as well as the current theory.

And I will repeat...efferent vision does not negate the scientific theory of vision except for the transduction of photons into electro-chemical signals.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

I'm not telling you what you have to do.

I'm telling you that what you are doing right now is making you unhappy, and will keep making you unhappy. Either do something else, or be someone else. The person you are now will always be made unhappy by the thing you are doing now.

Because that will help somehow? Certainly, if you could just get everyone on the forum to stop posting in your thread, you'd be happy... Wait! They have a technology for this. It's called a "blog". Maybe you should start a blog, and disable comments! Then you can post anything you want without having your feelings hurt.

But if you post here, you're gonna get the sorts of responses people get here, and if that is so upsetting for you that you can't talk to people anymore, and you have to tell people to leave your thread... Well, continuing to do it is sorta stupid, isn't it?

Yes, it is stupid. And I am beginning to look foolish. Why didn't you read Chapter One like I asked? Then you would have something to base your comments on.

[Vivisectus]

I am curious: In the 8 years that you have been proselytizing this work, how many people have been convinced?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I will repeat...efferent vision does not negate the scientific theory of vision except for the transduction of photons into electro-chemical signals.

But therein lies the rub, since the current model of sight so perfectly explains what is going on precisely because it involves transduction of photons into electro-chemical signals. Remove that, and the current model absolutely falls apart. You can't just take that part out, reverse the rest of it, and call it a day. That is not an explanation, and it doesn't match the facts. (never mind that we have actually witnessed and measured the transduction of photons into electro-chemical signals within the eye; you won't believe me, and if I bothered taking the time to cite sources you'd whinge and balk about how 'unreliable' and 'faulty' those experiments obviously were.)

Indeed, the claims of efferent sight your father makes and you defend cannot even account for the refraction of light through a body of water, something that fish and aquatic animals around the world are superbly adapted to. They wouldn't need to be if they 'saw' anything directly. Instead they must wait for the light to arrive, and detect and decode it, which means they must allow for things like refraction.

In your 'model' refraction wouldn't even be a detectable phenomenon without special instruments that do detect and measure light. We would just 'see' the object through the water 'directly' and the fact that water bends light passing through it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am curious: In the 8 years that you have been proselytizing this work, how many people have been convinced?

Vivisectus, I haven't marketed this book. The only people who know about it are those who are on these forums, and you can't use this as a judge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

But therein lies the rub, since the current model of sight so perfectly explains what is going on precisely because it involves transduction of photons into electro-chemical signals. Remove that, and the current model absolutely falls apart. You can't just take that part out, reverse the rest of it, and call it a day. That is not an explanation, and it doesn't match the facts. (never mind that we have actually witnessed and measured the transduction of photons into electro-chemical signals within the eye; you won't believe me, and if I bothered taking the time to cite sources you'd whinge and balk about how 'unreliable' and 'faulty' those experiments obviously were.)

I'd like to see the proof, if there actually is one.

Originally Posted by Kael

Indeed, the claims of efferent sight your father makes and you defend cannot even account for the refraction of light through a body of water, something that fish and aquatic animals around the world are superbly adapted to. They wouldn't need to be if they 'saw' anything directly. Instead they must wait for the light to arrive, and detect and decode it, which means they must allow for things like refraction.

Why would this negate seeing efferently. The refraction of light would still cause the same physical effect and would be seen as such.

Originally Posted by Kael

In your 'model' refraction wouldn't even be a detectable phenomenon without special instruments that do detect and measure light. We would just 'see' the object through the water 'directly' and the fact that water bends light passing through it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

Of course it would matter. The properties of light don't change, nor how that light effects our sight; why would you think that efferent vision would cause one to see differently?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, I haven't marketed this book. The only people who know about it are those who are on these forums, and you can't use this as a judge.

But there were other forums as well - at least 2 others, and you have been at this for years now. You must have spoken to dozens of people so far?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to see the proof, if there actually is.

Then go to your local City or University library and waste the time of someone who is getting paid to watch you ignore what they try to show you.

Why would this negate seeing efferently. The refraction of light would still cause the same physical effect and would be seen as such.

...

Of course it would matter. The properties of light don't change, nor how that light effects our sight; why would you think that efferent vision would cause one to see differently?

Are you really so far gone that I have to explain to you precisely what flavor of nonsense your father wrote on the subject?

If we do not have to wait for light to arrive to see, if we 'see directly' instead, then why in all the heavens and hells of pagan gods would it matter what happens to the light on the way here? We would just be able to 'see' the pencil in the water glass, sitting there straight as you please. The phenomenon of the pencil 'bending' as you lower it into the water is wholly a product of the refraction of light passing through, which we would not detect or see if we 'saw' the pencil directly, without the need for the light to strike our retinas.

I'm beginning to thing you're having one over on me for sticking my head in here again. As TLR expressed in his rare exasperated moments, which you seem to have a knack for bringing on, no one could possibly be as dense as you seem to be and still be able to function, to cook or dress or hold down a job. It boggles the mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But there were other forums as well - at least 2 others, and you have been at this for years now. You must have spoken to dozens of people so far?

Not that many people, and the ones I did speak to had their own agendas. Some were Neitzchians, some were objectivists, some were atheists (), etc. and they were not judging this work objectively. Believe me, no one has taken the time to study this book, no one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Then go to your local City or University library and waste the time of someone who is getting paid to watch you ignore what they try to show you.

Are you really so far gone that I have to explain to you precisely what flavor of nonsense your father wrote on the subject?

If we do not have to wait for light to arrive to see, if we 'see directly' instead, then why in all the heavens and hells of pagan gods would it matter what happens to the light on the way here? We would just be able to 'see' the pencil in the water glass, sitting there straight as you please. The phenomenon of the pencil 'bending' as you lower it into the water is wholly a product of the refraction of light passing through, which we would not detect or see if we 'saw' the pencil directly, without the need for the light to strike our retinas.

That's absolutely not true. We are still seeing that same light; what we aren't seeing are images coming from a light source.

Originally Posted by Kael

I'm beginning to thing you're having one over on me for sticking my head in here again. As TLR expressed in his rare exasperated moments, which you seem to have a knack for bringing on, no one could possibly be as dense as you seem to be and still be able to function, to cook or dress or hold down a job. It boggles the mind.

That's really a nice thing to say.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

We would just be able to 'see' the pencil in the water glass, sitting there straight as you please. The phenomenon of the pencil 'bending' as you lower it into the water is wholly a product of the refraction of light passing through, which we would not detect or see if we 'saw' the pencil directly, without the need for the light to strike our retinas.

.

But now Peacegirl will claim that when we see efferently we will see the same image as if we were seeing afferently, somehow the effects of the light traveling to the eyes, such as refraction, will also be seen in effernt vision. It's all really very simple, it's PFM. and the real science is TMI.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's really a nice thing to say.

Either sarcasm or naivete, it's really getting difficult to tell.