Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #13326  
Old 10-26-2011, 12:49 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I really don't have to reference anything about light if it's proved that efferent sight is a reality.
But efferent vision is not proven, and never can be so long as your own account of it remains logically contradictory. Until you can resolve that contradiction (within your own account, and not just between efferent vision and current science) efferent vision isn't even a logical possibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I know you're trying to create an inconsistency with cameras to prove that if there is a delayed image, then that means the photograph would be different from what the eyes see, which it never is. That would mean that light travels to the eye as well. I believe that your approach to this problem is logically consistent but not sound. That means somewhere along the line the basic properties of light have to be reevaluated in terms of efferent sight, if it's shown (through further investigation) that there is something to this claim.
I'm not creating the inconsistency, you are. Until you can resolve it, efferent vision is not even logically possible. You first need to work out which parts of the basic properties of light your account needs to reject. And then you will have to face up to the empirical observations and actual evidence we have showing these basic properties to be factually correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because this is not how he came upon this finding. If you follow the reasoning of science as it stands, you will always conclude that Lessans was wrong because there will be contradictions, just as there are contradictions with his claim of determinism. I believe they are both right and until proven otherwise, I stand with Lessans. You can think I'm a fundie, it's okay.:popcorn:
My question had nothing to do with how Lessans came to his conclusions. I'm asking why you show no interest in resolving contradictions between your own beliefs. Why is your faith more important to you than the consistency and truth of your own beliefs? I'm not asking you to follow "the reasoning of science as it stands", but rather the direct implications of your own stated beliefs.
Reply With Quote
  #13327  
Old 10-26-2011, 12:52 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?
Light

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?
At the film.

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?
The wavelengths.

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?
?
Yes, but now that it's there is what counts.
Thank you. So you've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?
Bump.
Reply With Quote
  #13328  
Old 10-26-2011, 01:01 AM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

So, peacegirl, I've answered your demands (again). So here's some of my unanswered questions.

What is an image? It is there, on the back of say a pinhole camera, even if we don't look at it. So what is it?

And two new ones:

How can we tell if an object is 'out of range' or 'out of the field of view' of a camera?

Since you accept we can detect light, do you accept that we can work out where the light is coming from when it enters a camera? Even roughly, such as 'in the top/bottom/right side/left-side of the viewing angle of the camera'?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner

Last edited by Dragar; 10-26-2011 at 01:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13329  
Old 10-26-2011, 01:02 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Peacegirl, here are your current answers:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?
Light

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?
At the film.

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?
The wavelengths.

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?
Yes.

5. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?
Of course not.

6. Can light travel faster than light?
No.

7. Is wavelength a property of light?
Yes.

8. Can light travel without any wavelength?
No.

9. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?
Objects reflect light.

10. What does a reflection consist of?
Light.

11. What does light consist of?
Photons.

12. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?
Yes.
Do you agree that real-time photography is impossible given these answers?

If so, then which of these above answers do you think can be plausibly changed?

If not, then please answer the following: You've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?
Reply With Quote
  #13330  
Old 10-26-2011, 01:09 AM
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
I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?
If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?
Reply With Quote
  #13331  
Old 10-26-2011, 01:14 AM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?
If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?
peacegirl uses 'out of field of view' to mean 'out of range'. Like if the object becomes too small to see. Of course, she doesn't read my explanations as to why we can't see things when this happens, or she chooses to ignore them. She also doesn't appear to know what an image is.

She does accept we can detect light using telescopes, and presumably also cameras. I wonder if she'd accept we can work out where the light is coming from?

Note that we're half-way to making a crude 4-pixel image if we can determine if the light is coming from up, down, left or right!
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #13332  
Old 10-26-2011, 01:30 AM
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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I really don't have to reference anything about light if it's proved that efferent sight is a reality.
[Spacemonkey"]But efferent vision is not proven, and never can be so long as your own account of it remains logically contradictory. Until you can resolve that contradiction (within your own account, and not just between efferent vision and current science) efferent vision isn't even a logical possibility.
I don't see where there's a logical contradiction with my own account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I know you're trying to create an inconsistency with cameras to prove that if there is a delayed image, then that means the photograph would be different from what the eyes see, which it never is. That would mean that light travels to the eye as well. I believe that your approach to this problem is logically consistent but not sound. That means somewhere along the line the basic properties of light have to be reevaluated in terms of efferent sight, if it's shown (through further investigation) that there is something to this claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I'm not creating the inconsistency, you are. Until you can resolve it, efferent vision is not even logically possible. You first need to work out which parts of the basic properties of light your account needs to reject. And then you will have to face up to the empirical observations and actual evidence we have showing these basic properties to be factually correct.
Are you kidding? I'd be here another 1000 pages and there would be no progress. :( I really am tired of haggling over this. The only way out of this is to do more empirical studies on the brain and the eyes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because this is not how he came upon this finding. If you follow the reasoning of science as it stands, you will always conclude that Lessans was wrong because there will be contradictions, just as there are contradictions with his claim of determinism. I believe they are both right and until proven otherwise, I stand with Lessans. You can think I'm a fundie, it's okay.:popcorn:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
My question had nothing to do with how Lessans came to his conclusions. I'm asking why you show no interest in resolving contradictions between your own beliefs. Why is your faith more important to you than the consistency and truth of your own beliefs? I'm not asking you to follow "the reasoning of science as it stands", but rather the direct implications of your own stated beliefs.
I don't see a contradiction or inconsistency with my belief. You see an inconsistency because you believe that the first photon has to arrive at the lens before the second and so on. But you're missing the whole meaning of "efferent." I believe there is another way of looking at it, and I've already expressed it.

Last edited by peacegirl; 10-26-2011 at 02:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13333  
Old 10-26-2011, 01:37 AM
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 Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?
If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?
peacegirl uses 'out of field of view' to mean 'out of range'. Like if the object becomes too small to see. Of course, she doesn't read my explanations as to why we can't see things when this happens, or she chooses to ignore them. She also doesn't appear to know what an image is.
I know what an image is. It's a two-dimensional picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
She does accept we can detect light using telescopes, and presumably also cameras. I wonder if she'd accept we can work out where the light is coming from?

Note that we're half-way to making a crude 4-pixel image if we can determine if the light is coming from up, down, left or right!
I never said that we can't take a picture of light. What do you think a rainbow is?
Reply With Quote
  #13334  
Old 10-26-2011, 01:42 AM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?
If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?
peacegirl uses 'out of field of view' to mean 'out of range'. Like if the object becomes too small to see. Of course, she doesn't read my explanations as to why we can't see things when this happens, or she chooses to ignore them. She also doesn't appear to know what an image is.
I know what an image is. It's a two-dimensional picture.
'Picture' is just anothe word for 'image'. I don't want synonyms, I want to know what it is in terms of other things. What is an image?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
She does accept we can detect light using telescopes, and presumably also cameras. I wonder if she'd accept we can work out where the light is coming from?

Note that we're half-way to making a crude 4-pixel image if we can determine if the light is coming from up, down, left or right!
I never said that we can't take a picture of light. What do you think a rainbow is?

Oh, so we can 'take a picture of light' (lol). So why can't we 'take a picture of light' that has been reflected by real objects (and not by moisture in the atmosphere, which is what happens for us to see rainbows)?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #13335  
Old 10-26-2011, 01:43 AM
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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?
If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?
I don't understand why the camera cannot focus the light if it's in a straight line with it. It doesn't add up.
Reply With Quote
  #13336  
Old 10-26-2011, 01:44 AM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?
If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?
I don't understand why the camera cannot focus the light if it's in a straight line with it. It doesn't add up.
Maybe read my posts?

By the way, how do we tell if an object is out of range of a camera?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #13337  
Old 10-26-2011, 01:46 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDCCIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This was not a made up guy. His name was Dave.
Of course. :pat:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I told you this already but you conveniently forgot.
:nope: We've never discussed this topic before. I guess you conveniently made that up and launched it out your shitter. :yup:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This person was not imaginary; she was a close relative.
Of course. :pat:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
She was getting sicker and sicker from the psychiatrist's advice and the drugs she was given.
It's a good thing this is a self-aggrandizing bullshit story. Otherwise, one might be concerned about a seventh-grade dropout whose principal talents lie in the fields of and clown punching and 9-ball dispensing medical diagnoses and advice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He didn't hate medicine;
Sorry, but that's factually incorrect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
[I]Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Seven: The Wisdom of Socrates pp. 289-290

That's the thing about Lessans' book. Absent the verbosity, poor grammar, incorrect word use and voluminous butthurt over academics and presidents not taking him seriously, the Sacred Text would have been fifty pages or less in length. The version peacegirl had online was 589 pages, over ten times longer than necessary.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
  #13338  
Old 10-26-2011, 01:49 AM
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 Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?
If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?
peacegirl uses 'out of field of view' to mean 'out of range'. Like if the object becomes too small to see. Of course, she doesn't read my explanations as to why we can't see things when this happens, or she chooses to ignore them. She also doesn't appear to know what an image is.
Quote:
I know what an image is. It's a two-dimensional picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar"'Picture' is just anothe word for 'image'. I don't want synonyms, I want to know what it is in terms of other things. What is an image?[/quote]

It's a representation of the actual thing. Is that better?

[quote="Dragar
She does accept we can detect light using telescopes, and presumably also cameras. I wonder if she'd accept we can work out where the light is coming from?

Note that we're half-way to making a crude 4-pixel image if we can determine if the light is coming from up, down, left or right!
Quote:
I never said that we can't take a picture of light. What do you think a rainbow is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Oh, so we can take a picture of light. So why can't we take a picture of light that has been reflected by real objects (and not by moisture in the atmosphere, which is what happens for us to see rainbows)?
We see rainbows in real time as well. Why? Because the rainbow is in our field of view. If the rainbow was not in our field of view, we wouldn't be able to see it either.

Last edited by peacegirl; 10-26-2011 at 02:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13339  
Old 10-26-2011, 01:53 AM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
We see rainbows in real time also because the rainbow is in our field of vision. Light has certain properties that interact with the atmosphere and allow us to see all kinds of phenomenon, but we're talking about objects that have their own properties.
That's a dodge. We can take 'pictures of light' when it comes to rainbows; why can't we 'take pictures of light' reflected from objects? Answer the question; don't start rambling about things that have nothing to do with what I said.

And by the way, how do we tell if an object is in the field of view of a camera?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner

Last edited by Dragar; 10-26-2011 at 02:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13340  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:08 AM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
It's a representation of the actual thing. Is that better?
Sure, that's a bit better. But representations require something to be doing the representing. That's what represent means. So, when we have an image formed on the back of a camera, what is doing the representation?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #13341  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:10 AM
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 Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?
If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?
peacegirl uses 'out of field of view' to mean 'out of range'. Like if the object becomes too small to see. Of course, she doesn't read my explanations as to why we can't see things when this happens, or she chooses to ignore them. She also doesn't appear to know what an image is.

She does accept we can detect light using telescopes, and presumably also cameras. I wonder if she'd accept we can work out where the light is coming from?

Note that we're half-way to making a crude 4-pixel image if we can determine if the light is coming from up, down, left or right!
Many pages ago Peacegirl introduced this impossable little puzzle and indicated that the object was relatively close but 'out of the field of view' and in a direct line of sight with the camera. She was setting a self contradictory test that could never happen as a condition that she would accept that efferent vision was not true. This bit of word salad is her way of clinging to her belief since no-one can demonstrate what she demands. Actually a very clever phrasing of the test to eliminate the possability of disproving Lessans.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (10-26-2011)
  #13342  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:15 AM
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
You see an inconsistency because you believe that the first photon has to arrive at the lens before the second and so on. It is the only logical conclusion, according to you, so that would negate efferent vision right from the start.

Are you suggesting that somehow light does not arrive at the lens in the order that it was emitted. In other words light from the source, just arrives whenever and just because some is emitted first that does not mean that it will arrive first?
Reply With Quote
  #13343  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:20 AM
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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?
If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?
I don't understand why the camera cannot focus the light if it's in a straight line with it. It doesn't add up.

The camera does focus the light that is in a straight line with it, which means it is also in the field of view. They go together you can't seperate them. 'In the line of sight' means the same thing as 'in a straight line with the camera', which means the same thing as 'in the field of view'.
Reply With Quote
  #13344  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:38 AM
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 Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This was not a made up guy. His name was Dave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Of course. :pat:
Why are you so *#$* nasty Stephen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I told you this already but you conveniently forgot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
:nope: We've never discussed this topic before. I guess you conveniently made that up and launched it out your shitter. :yup:
I know I mentioned early on in this thread that this was not made up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This person was not imaginary; she was a close relative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Of course. :pat:
Please don't go back to the old Stephen. You were more than nuts and bald and a son of a bitch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
She was getting sicker and sicker from the psychiatrist's advice and the drugs she was given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
It's a good thing this is a self-aggrandizing bullshit story. Otherwise, one might be concerned about a seventh-grade dropout whose principal talents lie in the fields of and clown punching and 9-ball dispensing medical diagnoses and advice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He didn't hate medicine;
Sorry, but that's factually incorrect.
I knew him, you didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
[I]Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Seven: The Wisdom of Socrates pp. 289-290

<Butthurt deleted. Oops! Nothing left!>
That's the thing about Lessans' book. Absent the verbosity, poor grammar, incorrect word use and voluminous butthurt over academics and presidents not taking him seriously, the Sacred Text would have been fifty pages or less in length. The version peacegirl had online was 589 pages, over ten times longer than necessary.
Actually his last book was 89 pages. Blame the verbosity on me.
Reply With Quote
  #13345  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:42 AM
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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You see an inconsistency because you believe that the first photon has to arrive at the lens before the second and so on. It is the only logical conclusion, according to you, so that would negate efferent vision right from the start.

Are you suggesting that somehow light does not arrive at the lens in the order that it was emitted. In other words light from the source, just arrives whenever and just because some is emitted first that does not mean that it will arrive first?
I'm saying that light is a condition of sight. This means that we see the object in real time using light as a medium. What's with you doc?
Reply With Quote
  #13346  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:43 AM
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

With all the wolves smelling blood and waiting to pounce, this subject is going to have to come to a close.
Reply With Quote
  #13347  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:55 AM
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 Dragar View Post
So, peacegirl, I've answered your demands (again). So here's some of my unanswered questions.

What is an image? It is there, on the back of say a pinhole camera, even if we don't look at it. So what is it?

And two new ones:

How can we tell if an object is 'out of range' or 'out of the field of view' of a camera?

Since you accept we can detect light, do you accept that we can work out where the light is coming from when it enters a camera? Even roughly, such as 'in the top/bottom/right side/left-side of the viewing angle of the camera'?
Of course we can tell where the light is coming from depending on where it lands on the film.
Reply With Quote
  #13348  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:58 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
There is also no hard data that disproves Lessans' first discovery.
It is not possible to get hard data proving or disproving the assertion that man's will is not free. That is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one, at this time. Neuroscience may be able to offer hard evidence one way or the other at some point, possibly.
LadyShea, you're beginning to upset me. You have no idea what you're talking about, so please don't.
Sure I know what I am talking about.
You think you do, but you don't. I read your summary of Lessans' first discovery, and you're way off. You think you can tell me what is and what is not scientific when you don't even have a basic grasp of the subject matter.
The question of whether man has free will or not cannot be answered with hard data at this time, peacegirl.

I am not sure what it is you think I am claiming that has you so upset, but there is no mechanism currently to provide empirical evidence for or against this.
But if you understood this knowledge, you would see that there is a premise, a body of content, and a conclusion. His reasoning from beginning to end is accurate. Empirical evidence will only confirm what he knew all along. Neuroscience is not the only field that can provide hard evidence. Talk about narrow minded. :eek: I can see that you understood nothing regarding his first discovery, for if you did you would be able to understand why man's will is not free, and why a no blame environment would prevent the very thing that blame and punishment could never accomplish.
Premises, conclusions and reasoning are NOT hard data nor empirical evidence.

Hard data is numbers, consistent images, physical measurements, that sort of thing. Empirical evidence might include multiple survey statistics.

Neither are possible with the question of "free will" at this time. We can't measure greater satisfaction, we can't detect all factors entering into a decision being made in the brain. And speaking of the brain, which branch of science do you think is most likely to provide hard data about this organ, if not neuroscience?

So, it's philosophical at this time, and Lessans reasoning was poor in my opinion, and I don't really care about free will.
Reply With Quote
  #13349  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:59 AM
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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You see an inconsistency because you believe that the first photon has to arrive at the lens before the second and so on. It is the only logical conclusion, according to you, so that would negate efferent vision right from the start.

Are you suggesting that somehow light does not arrive at the lens in the order that it was emitted. In other words light from the source, just arrives whenever and just because some is emitted first that does not mean that it will arrive first?
I'm saying that light is a condition of sight. This means that we see the object in real time using light as a medium. What's with you doc?
Does light arrive in the order that it is emitted? Do you know?
Reply With Quote
  #13350  
Old 10-26-2011, 03:07 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
With all the wolves smelling blood and waiting to pounce, this subject is going to have to come to a close.
You are once again retreating behind your histrionic persecution complex.

Nobody is a wolf out for blood. You are aware this is a defense mechanism for you, aren't you?
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 40 (0 members and 40 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 02:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.25690 seconds with 16 queries