A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are simply repeating "does not", I am repeating a series of well supported statements that you have been unable to coherently refute.

Also, there was a series of questions in there you could answer


Information about the object being seen is attained during the process of seeing, yes or no?

If no, then what is seeing if not perceiving, detecting, attaining, or otherwise gaining information about something that is not inside your brain?

If yes, then information has traveled from point A (whatever is being seen) to point B (your brain).

Your entire explanation is based on a false syllogism. Your reasoning appears logical but it is far from accurate.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your entire explanation is based on a false syllogism. Your reasoning appears logical but it is far from accurate.

So, once again, your refutation is "does not".

How about you explain it, and support your explanation with some facts, rather than speculations and "we have to wait and see" sidestepping?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And how many times did I say that this doesn't even relate. You can't even compare seeing in real time with gaining information that is faster than light transfer because there is no transfer involved.

Yes, there is, unless you can define or describe seeing in a way that does not include perceiving, detecting, attaining, or otherwise gaining information about something that is not inside your brain

Information about the object being seen is attained during the process of seeing, yes or no?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are the one that says there are no sacred people, but you are putting Einstein on such a pedestal that you can't even consider that your very wording is inaccurate. Why? Because you believe it contradicts Einstein.

How I feel about Einstein has nothing to do with my questions on this specific topic. What is seeing peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Goodall studied chimpanzees, not monkeys.

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is
defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual
receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five
senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.’ But this is
a wholly fallacious observation where the ears are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than sound, strikes the ear drum as stimuli do upon the organs of sight, taste, touch and smell.

Note that Lessans' objection to treating the eye as a sense organ applies equally well to the ear. If sight is efferent, then hearing must be also.

Not true. Hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching meet the definition of "sense organ."

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In any case, as TLR has already pointed out, on several occasions, light does not actually strike the optic nerve.

It wasn't necessary for him to get technical to understand what he meant by "light striking the optic nerve", because it doesn't alter the validity of his claim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, once again, your refutation is "does not".

How about you explain it, and support your explanation with some facts, rather than speculations and "we have to wait and see" sidestepping?

I have explained what I know to be true. How else can this be resolved other than to "wait and see" unless you choose to reject his claim because you don't think he has one? I am not sidestepping; I'm just being truthful. Like I said, if you don't think I provided enough for you to take an interest in any of his discoveries, then there is nothing more I can say that will change your mind. So let's agree to disagree. That way, you can move on to other things, and the people who are sincerely interested in the book can learn more without all of the static that is getting in the way.

[LadyShea]

Not true. Hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching meet the definition of "sense organ."

As does sight, since the eyes receive light, and even Lessans stated they did so

specialized to receive (eyes are specialized to receive light) and transmit (transduction has been observed) external stimuli (light is external stimuli)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As does sight, since the eyes receive light, and even Lessans stated they did so

specialized to receive (eyes are specialized to receive light) and transmit (transduction has been observed) external stimuli (light is external stimuli)

I've already heard your explanation. Now it's time to let this discussion go. I'm not telling you to change your mind, so let's leave it at that.

[LadyShea]

See my edited post, quoted here

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, once again, your refutation is "does not".

How about you explain it, and support your explanation with some facts, rather than speculations and "we have to wait and see" sidestepping?

Yes, there is, unless you can define or describe seeing in a way that does not include perceiving, detecting, attaining, or otherwise gaining information about something that is not inside your brain

How about answering this question:
Information about the object being seen is attained during the process of seeing, yes or no?

How I feel about Einstein has nothing to do with my questions on this specific topic. What is seeing peacegirl?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't do any more to tell you that your reasoning is inaccurate based on a false premise.

Instead of telling me it is false, you can demonstrate how and why it is false.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not sidestepping anything.

You are sidestepping defining or explaining sight in a way that does not include perceiving, detecting, attaining, or otherwise gaining information about something that is not inside your brain

Information about the object being seen is attained during the process of seeing, yes or no?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, if you don't think I provided enough for you to take an interest in this work, then there is nothing more I can say that will change your mind, so let's agree to disagree.

Sidestep and weasel

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That way, you can move on to other things, and the people who are sincerely interested in the book can learn more without all of the static that is getting in the way.

People are free to read or not read what I say, what you say, or what others say. What they perceive to be "static" is up to them, not you.

If you want to move on to other things, and think people here are interested, be my guest. Discuss whatever you want. You can ignore me. It's a great way to sidestep and weasel away from hard questions.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've already heard your explanation. Now it's time to let this discussion go. I'm not telling you to change your mind, so let's leave it at that.

No, I don't wish to leave it at that. This is the part of the book I am most interested in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

See my edited post, quoted here

Instead of telling me it is false, you can demonstrate how and why it is false.

You are sidestepping defining or explaining sight in a way that does not include perceiving, detecting, attaining, or otherwise gaining information about something that is not inside your brain

Information about the object being seen is attained during the process of seeing, yes or no?

Sidestep and weasel

People are free to read or not read what I say, what you say, or what others say. What they perceive to be "static" is up to them, not you.

If you want to move on to other things, and think people here are interested, be my guest. Discuss whatever you want. You can ignore me. It's a great way to sidestep and weasel away from hard questions.

Your hard questions are misleading because the hard evidence is not as definitive as you might think. Moreover, trying to turn his observations and reasoning into mere speculation indicates to me that it is not his work that needs improvement; it is your ability to judge the accuracy of a work that does not conform to your standard of proof (empirical testing). I am not weaseling. After all of these posts you should know that. You are intent on dismissing this knowledge, and the only way you would reconsider (in my opinion) is if other philosophers or scientists began to take notice. I don't want to ignore you, but if the confrontation continues, I will have to do just that.

[LadyShea]

Your hard questions are misleading because the hard evidence is not as definitive as you might think. Moreover, trying to turn his observations and reasoning into mere speculation indicates to me that it is not his work that needs improvement; it is your ability to judge the accuracy of a work that does not conform to your methodology.

So you refuse to answer the question below because I am a meanie?

Information about the object being seen is attained during the process of seeing, yes or no?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I don't wish to leave it at that. This is the part of the book I am most interested in.

And I stated early on, this chapter was not my main concern. So now I have to take the reins and change topics. If no one is interested, then at least I won't have wasted another 4 months beating a dead horse.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you refuse to answer the question below because I am a meanie?

Information about the object being seen is attained during the process of seeing, yes or no?

I have answered you numerous times. If we see in real time, the object that is seen is within our field of vision. Seeing is not information until it is interpreted. Whether we see afferently or efferently, to turn what we see into information, it has to be processed by the brain, which is not the same thing as sight. There are people who see perfectly but cannot process what they see because that part of their brain is damaged.

[LadyShea]

Peacegirl, any two objects separated by distance (or space), no matter how close or how far, are also separated by time, again no matter how little time or how great the time.

Any cause and effect are separated by time, again no matter how short the duration or how long the duration.

Minuscule fractions of a second are still a duration of time. Microscopic fractions of a centimeter are still distance (space).

The above two facts are why there is no such thing as a universal "here and now", or a universal here, or a universal now.

Yes, from a practical standpoint of living our lives, one can say "here and now" and be understood to mean "this general area and this short duration of time". That does not mean that "real time" is a scientifically valid concept.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seeing is not information until it is interpreted.

What is being interpreted?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

what we see into information, it has to be processed by the brain

And what is "what we see" if NOT data? What is being processed if not data or information?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are people who see perfectly but cannot process what they see because that part of their brain is damaged.

What are they seeing perfectly? Regardless of their ability to process it, what is the process of seeing if not attaining information?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the only way you would reconsider (in my opinion) is if other philosophers or scientists began to take notice.

I would reconsider if some data, logic, or evidence made me reconsider.

Did you read about the big brouhaha because scientists at CERN have data that seems to indicate they sent neutrinos to Italy faster than the speed of light* on multiple occasions? Ceptimus posted it in this thread, and we have a thread on it in the Sciences forum. This would be a monumental, flipping-Einstein-on-his-head discovery if it's found to not be the result of errors.

*billionths of a second faster than light, but still faster

This could be the kind of science that could help you prove Lessans right. You need to understand the implications of it all, and why there is such a big brouhaha about it though.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to ignore you, but if the confrontation continues, I will have to do just that.

As I said, I am giving my honest opinions and thoughts and conclusions, and explaining how/why I arrived at those opinions, thoughts and conclusions. If you feel that is confrontation, then you shouldn't be trying to discuss scientific or philosophical matters with anyone at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Peacegirl, any two objects separated by distance (or space), no matter how close or how far, are also separated by time, again no matter how little time or how great the time.

Any cause and effect are separated by time, again no matter how short the duration or how long the duration.

Minuscule fractions of a second are still a duration of time. Microscopic fractions of a centimeter are still distance (space).

The above two facts are why there is no such thing as a universal "here and now", or a universal here, or a universal now.

What does this have to do with cause and effect? The only cause and effect are: I open my eyes (cause); I see (effect). If the object is in my field of vision; there is no time involved.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, from a practical standpoint of living our lives, one can say "here and now" and be understood to mean "this general area and this short duration of time". That does not mean that "real time" is a scientifically valid concept.

Is this supposed to prove that there is no universal "now"? In concrete terms (not just theoretical), show me someone who lives in a different "here and now" than you or me. Even if it's true that clock time is slower on a moving train, it doesn't change the fact that we all live in the present, even if someone's "now" is different from another person's "now." There is no such thing as the past or future in reality. These are concepts that are part of our memory only. If we have amnesia, we will lose any conception of the past or future because all we have is the present.

[Vivisectus]

But your fathers concept of reincarnation requires a universal now to be true. A personal now is not enough.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I would reconsider if some data, logic, or evidence made me reconsider.

Did you read about the big brouhaha because scientists at CERN have data that seems to indicate they sent neutrinos to Italy faster than the speed of light* on multiple occasions? Ceptimus posted it in this thread, and we have a thread on it in the Sciences forum. This would be a monumental, flipping-Einstein-on-his-head discovery if it's found to not be the result of errors.

*billionths of a second faster than light, but still faster

This could be the kind of science that could help you prove Lessans right. You need to understand the implications of it all, and why there is such a big brouhaha about it though.

I saw the link from Ceptimus, and then I saw it on the news today. So far they haven't found any errors.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to ignore you, but if the confrontation continues, I will have to do just that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I said, I am giving my honest opinions and thoughts and conclusions, and explaining how/why I arrived at those opinions, thoughts and conclusions. If you feel that is confrontation, then you shouldn't be trying to discuss scientific or philosophical matters with anyone at all.

I have said over and over that more empirical data is necessary, especially in regard to his second discovery. I cannot do what those scientists have done. Someone is going to have to be interested enough to pursue this line of thinking and do more testing. Everyone thinks the testing has already been done, so it may never be taken seriously. I, myself, can do no more. It may take another 100 years to determine whether the eyes are, or are not, efferent. So at this point there is no reason to argue when there is nothing more that I can offer to defend his claim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But your fathers concept of reincarnation requires a universal now to be true. A personal now is not enough.

Please don't use the term "reincarnation" because that makes it seem as if the soul or spirit of someone is returned to live in a new body. That is not what he is talking about.

As far as a personal or universal "now", all I know is that there is no such thing as the past or future, so we must be living in the present. I know there will be disagreement, but this is what Lessans writes:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: Our Posterity: pp. 488-489

Now to solve this apparently unsolvable problem, it is first
necessary to establish certain undeniable facts. Therefore, let me
begin by asking you if there is such a reality as the past? Does this
word symbolize something that is a part of the real world?”
“Of course…yesterday is the past, today is the present, and
tomorrow is the future. And this is a mathematical relation.”

“It is true that yesterday was Thursday, and the day before was
Wednesday, and there isn’t any person alive who will disagree. But
this does not prove whether the word past is an accurate symbol. Can
you take it, like you can the words apple and pear, and hang it up on
something so I can look through it at the real McCoy? When does
the present become the past? I actually want you to demonstrate how
the present slips into the past. That cannot be done, by God Himself.

The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such
thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation
between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I
leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something
that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two
points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present. I
know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction
of a second ago, and that I am still talking.

The word past is
obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because
it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to
the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do
something, and because you are also conscious of space you perceive
that as you traverse a point from here to there, what is left behind as
you travel is called the past and your destination is the future. Here
lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it
humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future
when in reality all we ever have is the present?

Yet we have a word to
describe something that has no existence in the real world. Socrates
didn’t live in the past — he lived in the present, although our
recollection of him (which is in the present) allows us to think back to
this time period. The reason we say that Socrates lived in the past is
because this particular individual is no longer here. But is it possible
for you to say that God or the sun existed in the past?

Does anyone
ever sleep in the past; does the sun ever shine in the past; is it possible
for you to do anything in the past? If you were sitting up on a high
cloud these last ten thousand years, never asleep, as is the sun, you
would have watched Socrates in the present, just as you are watching
me write this book in the present. In order for me to prove what
seems impossible, it is absolutely necessary that I de-confuse the mind
of man so we can communicate.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Any cause and effect are separated by time, again no matter how short the duration or how long the duration.

Cause MUST happen before effect. Before indicates time.

Are you unable to comprehend the points I made, or are you trying to weasel out of addressing them coherently?

Minuscule fractions of a second are still a duration of time.

In concrete terms (not just theoretical), show me someone who lives in a different "here and now" than you or me.

any two objects separated by distance (or space), no matter how close or how far, are also separated by time


There is nothing theoretical about the above statement. It is simply factual. Are you unable to comprehend the very plain language I used?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no such thing as the past or future in reality.

Yes, there most certainly is, because "now" is always becoming the past, no matter how small you make the time, it is always some fraction of a second in the past, and it is always moving into the future.

Minuscule fractions of a second are still a duration of time.

[LadyShea]

It may take another 100 years to determine whether the eyes are, or are not, efferent. So at this point there is no reason to argue when there is nothing more that I can offer to defend his claim.

I call efferent vision disproved unless evidence is presented to the contrary.

Get back to us when you have some.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is being interpreted?

And what is "what we see" if NOT data? What is being processed if not data or information?

What are they seeing perfectly? Regardless of their ability to process it, what is the process of seeing if not attaining information?

This is all about definitions, and definitions can take us on a wrong course if they are inaccurate. Your reasoning is getting skewed because of a faulty definition of what "information transfer" even means.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I call efferent vision disproved unless evidence is presented to the contrary.

Get back to us when you have some.

I will. Now can we move on?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Any cause and effect are separated by time, again no matter how short the duration or how long the duration.

Cause MUST happen before effect. Before indicates time.

Are you unable to comprehend the points I made, or are you trying to weasel out of addressing them coherently?

Minuscule fractions of a second are still a duration of time.

any two objects separated by distance (or space), no matter how close or how far, are also separated by time


There is nothing theoretical about the above statement. It is simply factual. Are you unable to comprehend the very plain language I used?

Yes, there most certainly is, because "now" is always becoming the past, no matter how small you make the time, it is always some fraction of a second in the past, and it is always moving into the future.

Minuscule fractions of a second are still a duration of time.

The explanation Lessans gave in the above post is as clear as he could possibly be.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is all about definitions, and definitions can take us on a wrong course if they are inaccurate. Your reasoning is getting skewed because of a faulty definition of what "information transfer" even means.

It is all about what is happening in reality. You are weaseling with your nonsense about inaccurate definitions.

I have asked you to explain what is happening in reality if you are unable to define seeing.

Data/information about what is being seen at point A is attained by the eyes at point B. That's my explanation of seeing. Since any two objects (A and B in this case) separated by distance (or space), no matter how close or how far, are also separated by time then seeing is equivalent to "information transfer".

Do you have an explanation for seeing that does not involve data/information from one object being attained by another and the two objects are separated by space and time?