Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9101  
Old 07-27-2011, 02:39 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's just a logical theory with a lot of cobwebs in it. :yup:
No, that is the current intrepretation of the theory of relativity which is well supported, a scientific 'theory' is as good as fact, as opposed to lessans fantasy.
A theory might have supporting evidence but it's still a theory. You can't say a theory is a fact, or these words wouldn't have two different meanings.

The term is "Scientific Theory" which is quite different from the common english useage of the word 'Theory'. A 'Scientific Theory' is as good as fact, the common english useage 'Theory' is an idea in need of support. You need to stop displaying your ignorance of scientific practice. Stop being as stupid as the typical 'man on the street'.
A scientific theory is based on empirical evidence which distinguishes it from a hunch, or a hypothesis, but there is the possibility that the empirical evidence is incomplete.
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.

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-27-2011 at 07:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9102  
Old 07-27-2011, 04:09 PM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMMCLXXXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

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.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #9103  
Old 07-27-2011, 04:12 PM
Goliath's Avatar
Goliath Goliath is offline
select custom_user_title from user_info where username='Goliath';
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kansas City, MO
Gender: Male
Posts: MMDCCVII
Images: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
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.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Godliness is next to impossible.
Therefore, cleanliness is next to impossible.
Reply With Quote
  #9104  
Old 07-27-2011, 04:15 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
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. ;)
Reply With Quote
  #9105  
Old 07-27-2011, 04:17 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goliath View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
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.
Goliath, I'm still waiting for an apology for calling me a vapid cunt. :(

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-27-2011 at 07:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9106  
Old 07-27-2011, 04:20 PM
Goliath's Avatar
Goliath Goliath is offline
select custom_user_title from user_info where username='Goliath';
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kansas City, MO
Gender: Male
Posts: MMDCCVII
Images: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Goliath, I'm still waiting for an apology for calling me a vapid cunt.
By all means, keep on waiting.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Godliness is next to impossible.
Therefore, cleanliness is next to impossible.
Reply With Quote
  #9107  
Old 07-27-2011, 04:28 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9108  
Old 07-27-2011, 04:39 PM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMMCLXXXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

dup post
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #9109  
Old 07-27-2011, 04:41 PM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMMCLXXXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
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?
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Goliath (07-27-2011), Kael (07-27-2011)
  #9110  
Old 07-27-2011, 04:46 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
... Well, continuing to do it is sorta stupid, isn't it?
You seem to have Peacegirl figured out.
Reply With Quote
  #9111  
Old 07-27-2011, 05:23 PM
Sidhe Sidhe is offline
Banned for death threats
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dr X's mum
Posts: MDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's just a logical theory with a lot of cobwebs in it. :yup:
No, that is the current intrepretation of the theory of relativity which is well supported, a scientific 'theory' is as good as fact, as opposed to lessans fantasy.
A theory might have supporting evidence but it's still a theory. You can't say a theory is a fact, or these words wouldn't have two different meanings.

The term is "Scientific Theory" which is quite different from the common english useage of the word 'Theory'. A 'Scientific Theory' is as good as fact, the common english useage 'Theory' is an idea in need of support. You need to stop displaying your ignorance of scientific practice. Stop being as stupid as the typical 'man on the street'.
A scientific theory is based on empirical evidence which distinguishes it from a hunch, or a hypothesis, but there is the possibility that the empirical evidence is incomplete.
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 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* :shrug:

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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Sidhe; 07-27-2011 at 05:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9112  
Old 07-27-2011, 06:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9113  
Old 07-27-2011, 06:59 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goliath View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Goliath, I'm still waiting for an apology for calling me a vapid cunt.
By all means, keep on waiting.
I will. :)
Reply With Quote
  #9114  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidhe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
peacegirl, I wonder how efferent vision explains this:

Bifocal Fish Sees Differently above and below Water Line: Scientific American Podcast

Quote:
Anableps anableps—a fish related to the guppy. It lives in the brackish waters of mangrove swamps in central and South America, and hunts for food at the water's surface... its bulging eyes submerged halfway. Which poses an evolutionary problem—should those eyes be attuned to the greenish light streaming through the mangroves? Or the yellowish rays drifting up through murky water? Well, these fish eyes see both.

Anableps doesn't actually have four eyes—just the usual two. But each eye has two pupils, one above water, one below. And each pupil sends incoming visual info to a different side of the fish's retina.

Cones in each half of the retina are adapted to produce different light-filtering pigments. So cones hit by underwater rays are primed to sense longer-wavelength yellow light. Cones hit by daylight are sensitive to shorter-wavelength green light. The finding appears in the journal Biology Letters. [Gregory Owens et al., "In the Four-Eyed Fish (Anableps anableps), the Regions of the Retina Exposed to Aquatic and Aerial Light Do Not Express the Same Set of Opsin Genes"]
Why would these fish discredit efferent vision? The brain is able to see above or below water depending on which eye is needed. Very interesting though. Thanks for sharing!
Think you missed the point there. It is very interesting but you didn't really answer the question; it's a little deeper than the answer you gave. Try again and this time try and think about what he's asking and the implications.

You gotta see it as it is?
I'm tryin, why don't you help me. :) Show me where this rules out efferent vision.
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9115  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:11 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
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?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9116  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:22 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I am curious: In the 8 years that you have been proselytizing this work, how many people have been convinced?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Goliath (07-27-2011)
  #9117  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:28 PM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
specious_reasons (07-27-2011)
  #9118  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:31 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9119  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:35 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-27-2011 at 07:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9120  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:41 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
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.
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?
Reply With Quote
  #9121  
Old 07-27-2011, 07:45 PM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.


Quote:
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.
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
  #9122  
Old 07-27-2011, 08:02 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9123  
Old 07-27-2011, 08:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.


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

Quote:
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. :sadcheer:
Reply With Quote
  #9124  
Old 07-27-2011, 08:09 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9125  
Old 07-27-2011, 08:14 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
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. :sadcheer:
Either sarcasm or naivete, it's really getting difficult to tell.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 47 (0 members and 47 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.25420 seconds with 16 queries