A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only way you would see no object is if your eyes were not open. It has nothing to do with being over there, because there is no "over there" when it comes to seeing efferently. That doesn't mean we don't see three dimension or realize that what we see is "over there".

If it is "over there" both physically, as well as perceptually, then it is "over there" in reality. What part of this is confusing to you?

Efferent vision is therefore magical, if it is true, as it is able to negate physical and perceptual distance and therefore the laws of physics.

Do you think the researchers at CERN would be so freaked out by their billionths of a second statistical anomaly with the neutrinos if something as commonplace, testable, and measurable as seeing something regularly happened with zero time delay?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to be kidding. No one will let me continue. They even said this. They will not be interested in the rest of the book if I can't prove that his premises are true, and that can't be done until you recognize that his observations were spot on.

How do you expect us to recognize something as "spot on" when you can't supply any evidence that it is spot on, cannot adequately address valid and rational objections to its being spot on, and that certainly doesn't seem to be spot on under the most basic of critical analysis?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you think we're stuck on page 53? I realize that you and Vivisectus read the first two chapters, but you would not accept my answers to your questions, as if to say my answers had no validity.

Your answers have not been remotely adequate. You mostly said stuff like "You are wrong" and "It is not fallacious" and "You don't understand" and "read it again".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are totally off base. I hope you recognize this. With that kind of attitude, it's no wonder we have gotten nowhere.

We've gotten nowhere because you can't adequately defend even the first premise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I ever wanted to do was present Lessans' very astute observations and reasoning to the world, which has been denied due to a lot of misguided anger and premature judgment.

You've not been denied presentation at all. You've been denied blind and unthinking acceptance of those ideas.

[LadyShea]

I wasn't going to do this for another week or so, peacegirl, but you've accused me yet again of not understanding Lessans words. Here's a fact for you...you don't understand Lessans words.

Here is Lessans original puzzle

Originally Posted by Lessans

I asked this person if it was possible to arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter.

You accused Ceptimus of not solving the puzzle when he posted his first solution below, but you couldn't explain what condition of the puzzle was not met, because you didn't, and I am willing to bet still don't understand the conditions of the puzzle.

You simply made up a condition (that DEF was a required triplet) to call it wrong. Do you know, and can you now explain how this solution does not meet the conditions of the puzzle? Whether it matches Lessans solution is not what I am asking. I am asking you to explain the conditions of the puzzle. Can you do that?

Originally Posted by Ceptimus solution 1

ABC ADE AFG AHI AJK
ALM ANO BDF BEG BHJ
BIK BLN BMO CDG CEF
CHK CIJ CLO CMN DHL
DIM DJN DKO EHM EIL
EJO EKN FHN FIO FJL
FKM GHO GIN GJM GKL

He then went on to offer a solution you deemed valid.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what he has but if no letter is twice with the same letter and all the letters are used, then there is more than one solution. Bravo!

But guess what? That solution did not meet all the puzzle's conditions either.

I noted the missing condition and notified Ceptimus of it via PM, and he went on to solve it yet again, meeting the final condition that YOU MISSED (his last solution is complete). He also noted to me that it made it a much better and more interesting puzzle.

I knew you didn't understand the conditions of the puzzle when you didn't even recognize that Ceptimus' awesome rewrite, with the children feeding classroom pets, was the same puzzle.

So, you never did notice. I kept hoping you would because you claim to understand Lessans writing so well, and you tell us we're wrong when we say he writes poorly and unclearly or uses fallacious reasoning, and you keep accusing us of "not understanding".

So, here's your chance to prove that you comprehend Lessans even as much as we do. Tell me what the condition is that you missed and I found? In fact, list all the conditions of the puzzle and/or explain them in your own words.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it is "over there" both physically, as well as perceptually, then it is "over there" in reality. What part of this is confusing to you?

Depth perception allows a true picture of reality to be seen both physically and perceptually. What part of this is confusing to you?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Efferent vision is therefore magical, if it is true, as it is able to negate physical and perceptual distance and therefore the laws of physics.

The laws of physics are not negated by efferent vision. We see the same reality efferently as we would see if we were interpreting signals coming from light because the same visual system is being utilized, only it's reversed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you think the researchers at CERN would be so freaked out by their billionths of a second statistical anomaly with the neutrinos if something as commonplace, testable, and measurable as seeing something regularly happened with zero time delay?

No they wouldn't, because seeing in real time does not conflict with the billionth of a second statistical anomaly of faster than light neutrinos that have been recently discovered.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The laws of physics are not negated by efferent vision.

Yes, yes the laws of physics are negated if efferent vision is true. You don't comprehend why this would be, but it most certainly is a fact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see the same reality efferently as we would see if we were interpreting signals coming from light because the same visual system is being utilized, only it's reversed.

And information is instantly attained at a distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

seeing in real time does not conflict with the billionth of a second statistical anomaly of faster than light neutrinos that have been recently discovered.

Yes, yes it does conflict. It conflicts a lot. You don't comprehend the conflict, but it most certainly exists.

And the data indicating faster than light neutrinos is not a discovery yet. They are positive it is due to error, and they published it in the hopes that other scientists can find the error.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I know that he did not say that light passes along the optic nerve. I even quoted you saying that he didn't say that. My point, which you completely failed to get, was that no one else is saying that light passes along the optic nerve either. So, what does it matter that he also did not say that?

Granted, no one said light passes through the optic nerve. It doesn't matter that he also did not say that, but...(and I think you know what I meant) Lessans never went into detail regarding what does happen. He wanted people to know what does not happen (i.e., light does not transmute into signals that are interpreted by the brain and seen as normal vision).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly what I said. There is no point A that an image has to travel from to reach point B in order to be seen. So that would lead to the conclusion that there is no "information transfer" in efferent sight that involves space and time.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is really all quite simple. If you are looking at something (whether afferently or efferently) it is over there and you are over here. Therefore, the object you are viewing is separated from you, the viewer, by the distance between here and there. Do you dispute this?

No.

It is over there and you are over here, which is why we see the effects of finite light traveling from point A to point B, but it's not that way where the eyes are concerned. The eyes don't know that within their field of vision they are looking at an object that is over there. They see the object because it is there to be seen due to there being no information transfer on the waves of light.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

An object, over there, contains information (size, shape, color, etc.) about itself. You, over here, look at the object. Prior to seeing said object you did not possess any information about that object. Having seen that object you now possess information about that object, information that you did not possess before you saw the object. The currently accepted theory of vision includes an explanation for how information about the object over there becomes information in your brain, over here. The question then, the one you need to answer, is how does it happen that you, over here, now have information (information that you did not previously possess) about that object over there? In other words, you have now acquired information that you did not previously possess. What mechanism do you propose that accounts for this acquistion of new information?

If sight is efferent, the view we are looking at is seen instantly, but the acquisition of information about the scene we are looking at is acquired as the brain processes that information. I don't see anything that would be a source of conflict.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained efferent vision. If it's correct, that's all I need to explain.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, you haven't. An explanation of efferent vision would, at a minimum, include a description of the mechanism by which it functions. Since you have repeatedly admitted that you don't know how it works you can't honestly claim to have ever explained it.

I explained his astute observations and the reasoning that led him to his conclusions. A person's observations can be correct without explaining the exact mechanism behind them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I am repeating myself it's because I am answering the same questions over and over.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Incorrect. You are repeating yourself because you are not answering the same questions and you are not answering them over and over. It is true that you are replying to them (some of them, anyway), but you are not answering them. A reply is not necessarily the same thing as an answer.

I am answering them to the best of my ability based on what I know to be true. If they aren't adequate, then more empirical testing is in order which I've said all along.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because they refuse to let me continue since they won't accept the premises.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is an out and out falsehood. No one here has prevented you from continuing your explanation and promotion of Lessans' ideas.

I suppose that what you really mean to say is that we have not allowed you to control the direction and the scope of the discussion, to your satisfaction. Too bad, so sad.

No one seems interested in his proof of determinism. It's as if they don't believe he has proven anything, so they don't care to listen. The only reason I want to control the direction and scope of the discussion is because of the importance of his first discovery. We could be talking about the senses ad nauseum and get nowhere. This thread is taking a turn that was never intended.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From the very beginning of my online experience which goes back to 2003, it has been a failure. But the failure is not because of Lessans.

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

What is the one common factor in all of your online experiences?

Skepticism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's partly due to the venue of the online experience itself, and how people are perceived in a virtual world.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how are people perceived in the virtual world that led to the problem? You have chosen repeatedly not to get to know people in any real way, choosing to stick to your topic and perceive them only in relation to their response to this topic.

If I tried to get to know people in any real way, I would never get to the discovery. It takes a long time to get to know people on an individual basis.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That doesn't mean the rest of the world perceives others they interact with online in such a shallow and limited way. This sounds like projection on your part.

It has nothing to do with projection. It's that people didn't like that I said I have a discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most of the forums I went to had particular worldviews. Some were believers in objectivism, some Nietzscheism, some believed in anarchy, some capitalism, many were atheists like this group, some were religious.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And as disparate as these groups are in their worldview, they all rejected Lessans ideas. That doesn't tell you something?

Yes it does, it tells me how protective we all are over our worldviews, especially if our worldviews help us make sense of the world.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And we are not all atheists. Angukuk is a Christian minister and Vivisectus is a Muslim and Wildernesse is a Christian.

I like it when people come from different backgrounds. But for the most part, the forums I have been to promote one dominant ideology.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who was I to come to their forum and make huge claims about a discovery? I have to admit if I were sitting on their side of the fence,

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not about that, most people are open to new ideas that make sense and are well presented.

I didn't have any idea that his discovery on the senses would cause such a negative reaction. All I can do is pass this knowledge on in the hope that one day it is confirmed valid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay, please explain the proof in your own words. I've read Lessans words, and am apparently unable to comprehend them

I am not going to explain his first discovery in my own words before people read the text. I am not going to add to the confusion and then you tell me that he is wrong and I don't even understand the discovery myself. That's what you're trying to do. Believe me when I tell you that you don't have a complete grasp of these principles. It is YOU WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND. It's also true that if you reject the premises (which are necessary truths) from the get go, we cannot have a productive discussion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I love this particular bit.

"People are compelled to choose that which leads to the most satisfaction"

Only "That which leads to the most satifaction = that which people end up choosing"
And "People are compelled to choose" = "People end up choosing something"

Which means that the true meaning of the statement becomes "People end up choosing that which people end up choosing."

You are doing exactly what LadyShea is doing, trying to use this circular reasoning as his proof. I give up.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained his astute observations and the reasoning that led him to these conclusions. A person's observations can be correct without explaining the exact mechanism behind them.

Now, see, that is the point that people have been trying to hammer through your particularly thick skull since the beginning: despite your claims to the contrary, you haven't explained anything whatsoever.

You certainly haven't explained Lessans' alleged "astute observations," nor have you provided any clear and consistent explanation of his alleged reasoning. [What were those observations? How did he take them and under what conditions? How did he control for observer bias -- which seems to be rather large, by the way? What were his sample sizes? What were his controls? Etc., etc., etc.]

Instead, you insist over and over and over again that he made certain -- conveniently unspecified -- "astute observations," and you expect us to simply take you at your word that a.) he actually made these alleged observations, and b.) that they actually revealed something meaningful. At no time have you provided any evidence whatsoever that these alleged observations ever took place, or that they actually revealed anything meaningful.

You can keep claiming that he made these alleged "astute observations" as often as you want, but absent any evidence to back your empty claims, they're just that -- empty claims.

[LadyShea]

No one seems interested in his proof of determinism.

Because it was fallacious and circular.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The laws of physics are not negated by efferent vision.

Originally Posted by LadyShea"Yes, yes the laws of physics are negated if efferent vision is true. You don't comprehend why this would be, but it most certainly is a fact.[/quote]

The laws of physics is not negated. Efferent vision does not mean attaining information faster than the speed of light because there is no travel time involved whatsoever, therefore it doesn't meet the definition.

[quote="LadyShea

And information is instantly attained at a distance.

Yes, because we have the apparatus to see in 3D, which has no relation to the direction our eyes see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

seeing in real time does not conflict with the billionth of a second statistical anomaly of faster than light neutrinos that have been recently discovered.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, yes it does conflict. It conflicts a lot. You don't comprehend the conflict, but it most certainly exists.

I understand how it would conflict if light was the purveyer of information (as in afferent vision); but if light is a condition of sight and not a purveyer of information (as in efferent vision), I don't see the conflict.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And the data indicating faster than light neutrinos is not a discovery yet. They are positive it is due to error, and they published it in the hopes that other scientists can find the error.

I hope they find it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are doing exactly what LadyShea is doing, trying to use this circular reasoning as his proof. I give up.

Actually I am merely pointing out that there is a problem with the definitions he used. They led him to mistakenly conclude that because a result happened, it followed that that result had to happen. However, all that was (retrospectively) shown was that something did happen. It does not show that this result was necessary.

He did not notice that the statement "This choice is the choice which leads to the most satisfaction" is only true if "This choice is the choice that was taken" is also true. The two can therefor be considered to have the same meaning.

So then when we say that people are compelled to choose that which leads to the most satisfaction, we are saying that people are compelled to choose that which they end up choosing. However, we have failed to show how it follows that people are compelled to do so.

I could say "All things are pre-determined. The proof of this is that whatever happened had to happen, and we know this because it happened."

Does that prove that all things are pre-determined? No it does not. The logic is flawed. The same goes for "People are compelled to choose that which leads to the most satisfaction". The fallacy is the same.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent vision does not mean attaining information faster than the speed of light

If "efferent vision" means "instantaneous vision" then Yes. It. Does.

You cannot comprehend it.

You don't comprehend the conflict, that's what I said.

Let me try it a different way then.

Information transfer between two points (which yes, if there is physical distance between two things that is two points) is limited by causality and relativity the same as light traveling between those two points.

The natural mechanism by which information (the visual properties of that which you are seeing) is attained at a distance does not matter in the slightest, whether by light or the brain seeing through the eyes...unless you are positing supernatural forces, all mechanisms share the same limitations and those limitations bar instantaneous seeing.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And the data indicating faster than light neutrinos is not a discovery yet. They are positive it is due to error, and they published it in the hopes that other scientists can find the error.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope they find it.

If they don't find an error, and can repeat the results, things will get pretty damned exciting and dramatic in the physics world.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's also true that if you reject the premises (which are necessary truths)...

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People must choose that which leads to greater satisfaction. We know this because after the fact we can simply define any choice made as having been that option that led in the direction of greater satisfaction. You chose left instead of right? You had to have chosen that because left led to greater satisfaction.

Notice the ass-begotten "must" and the proof by definition.

But, peacegirl claims this is neither a modal fallacy, nor circular reasoning.

Not to mention that it is difficult to know if any given choice will have greater satisfaction. Generally, the road to ruin is the path of greater satisfaction.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Now, see, that is the point that people have been trying to hammer through your particularly thick skull since the beginning: despite your claims to the contrary, you haven't explained anything whatsoever.

You certainly haven't explained Lessans' alleged "astute observations," nor have you provided any clear and consistent explanation of his alleged reasoning. [What were those observations? How did he take them and under what conditions? How did he control for observer bias -- which seems to be rather large, by the way? What were his sample sizes? What were his controls? Etc., etc., etc.]

Instead, you insist over and over and over again that he made certain -- conveniently unspecified -- "astute observations," and you expect us to simply take you at your word that a.) he actually made these alleged observations, and b.) that they actually revealed something meaningful. At no time have you provided any evidence whatsoever that these alleged observations ever took place, or that they actually revealed anything meaningful.

You can keep claiming that he made these alleged "astute observations" as often as you want, but absent any evidence to back your empty claims, they're just that -- empty claims.

And even if he did make those observations, it doesn't follow that he was right. Certainly the world is full of people who have made observations they earnestly thought were correct that were just flat wrong. But the kicker is that no matter what Lessans thought he saw or understood, nobody else, let me repeat, nobody else sees it. So who cares what Lessans thought he observed?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to explain his first discovery in my own words before people read the text. I am not going to add to the confusion and then you tell me that he is wrong and I don't even understand the discovery myself. That's what you're trying to do. Believe me when I tell you that you don't have a complete grasp of these principles. It is YOU WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND. It's also true that if you reject the premises (which are necessary truths) from the get go, we cannot have a productive discussion.

Maybe we don't understand, but neither you nor Lessans appears to be able to communicate any sort of understanding of a "discovery". Its not that one or two people here fail to comprehend it but everybody at this site and as I understand it, at several other sites as well have failed to understand it.

Most people would suspect the problem is not on our end, but on your end. But hey, maybe you will have better luck on another site, although I doubt it. You are just too stubborn for your good.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wasn't going to do this for another week or so, peacegirl, but you've accused me yet again of not understanding Lessans words. Here's a fact for you...you don't understand Lessans words.

Here is Lessans original puzzle

You accused Ceptimus of not solving the puzzle when he posted his first solution below, but you couldn't explain what condition of the puzzle was not met, because you didn't, and I am willing to bet still don't understand the conditions of the puzzle.

You simply made up a condition (that DEF was a required triplet) to call it wrong. Do you know, and can you now explain how this solution does not meet the conditions of the puzzle? Whether it matches Lessans solution is not what I am asking. I am asking you to explain the conditions of the puzzle. Can you do that?

I believe it does meet the requirements (if DEF is not a required triplet) if no letter is twice with another letter.

I knew you didn't understand the conditions of the puzzle when you didn't even recognize that Ceptimus' awesome rewrite, with the children feeding classroom pets, was the same puzzle.

I do understand the conditions of the puzzle. I just didn't recognize the rewrite. So what did I miss?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, you never did notice. I kept hoping you would because you claim to understand Lessans writing so well, and you tell us we're wrong when we say he writes poorly and unclearly or uses fallacious reasoning, and you keep accusing us of "not understanding".

You are absolutely wrong when you say he uses fallacious reasoning. As far as his writing style, I put this book together and I made it as clear as possible. As far as the puzzle goes, I never worked on it but Lessans did. The only reason he put it in the book is because a professor said it couldn't be done and the student believed that he must be right because of his position. That was the whole purpose of giving this example. This has nothing to do with my understanding of the actual discovery. You're trying very hard to discredit me, but you can't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, here's your chance to prove that you comprehend Lessans even as much as we do. Tell me what the condition is that you missed and I found? In fact, list all the conditions of the puzzle and/or explain them in your own words.

There have to be 105 blocks or letters divided equally between A and 0 in groups of three such that no letter is ever twice with the same letter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Maybe we don't understand, but neither you nor Lessans appears to be able to communicate any sort of understanding of a "discovery". Its not that one or two people here fail to comprehend it but everybody at this site and as I understand it, at several other sites as well have failed to understand it.

Most people would suspect the problem is not on our end, but on your end. But hey, maybe you will have better luck on another site, although I doubt it. You are just too stubborn for your good.

I am not going to another site. And please stop saying I'm stubborn for my own good. I know what he has discovered. If 99% of the world says man's will is free, and 1% says it isn't free, is the 99% automatically right because the majority says so? My answer is no. By the same token, if 99% of the people at these sites believe that Lessans is wrong, and 1% believes he is right, is the 99% automatically right because the majority says so? My answer is no.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

And even if he did make those observations, it doesn't follow that he was right. Certainly the world is full of people who have made observations they earnestly thought were correct that were just flat wrong. But the kicker is that no matter what Lessans thought he saw or understood, nobody else, let me repeat, nobody else sees it. So who cares what Lessans thought he observed?

I believe you read Chapter One, correct? If you did, you should be able to explain his reasoning as to why man's will is not free. Can you do that? Can anybody do that? Please don't use the same lame syllogism that LadyShea and Vivisectus used to try to reduce his observations to nothing more than circular reasoning, or a modal fallacy.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to another site. And please stop saying I'm stubborn for my own good. I know what he has discovered. If 99% of the world says man's will is free, and 1% says it isn't free, is the 99% automatically right because the majority says so? My answer is no. By the same token, if 99% of the people at these sites believe that Lessans is wrong, and 1% believes he is right, is the 99% automatically right because the majority says so? My answer is no.

But what you say about free will or whatever just doesn't matter because you and Lessans have redefined the words. You have your own language that nobody else understands. And you do not appear to be able to present enough clarity on much of anything to make people care about the new language.

Lessans would have been better off just making up new words. That way we would not have to deal with your definition of "no free will" as the ability to make choices.

It's just friggin insane.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe you read Chapter One, correct? If you did, you should be able to explain his demonstration as to why man's will is not free. Can you do that? Can anybody do that?

I don't care. His "observation" are unobserved by anyone else. Lessans was a deluded little man who lived in his own little world.

If you can't figure out a way for people to see with "efferent vision" instead of the vision as explained by modern science then you got nuthin. And your insistence on quoting Lessans just makes the both of you look like nut jobs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Not to mention that it is difficult to know if any given choice will have greater satisfaction. Generally, the road to ruin is the path of greater satisfaction.

That is true. Sometimes people make choices that they know aren't good for them, but they still get greater satisfaction in choosing them. We all see this when people take drugs. They know that what they're doing isn't good for them but they do it anyway because they get more satisfaction getting high than staying sober. When they go through enough misery, the satisfaction of staying sober may outweigh the satisfaction of getting high. Our choices change from moment to moment depending on our circumstances and what we're basing our choices on.