A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has to be at the retina...

So then why did you just claim that "light only has to be at the object, not on Earth"? The retina is on Earth. If light has to be at the retina, then light has to be on Earth as well as at the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see where you are confused. Light is at the eye...

Great, so back to my previous question then: For the photons which are at the eye at the very first moment the Sun is ignited, were they ever previously located at the surface of the Sun?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not understanding why efferent vision changes what is seen and why light is at the retina even though it has not traveled to Earth.

I cannot understand this point yet because it is the part you keep refusing to explain or address.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are playing some serious games with me Spacemonkey. If you don't care to talk to me, just keep doing what you're doing and this is what will happen.

I'm not playing anything. It was a serious question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're thinking in terms of the afferent model again. Instead of thinking "objects reflect light"; think "light reflects objects." Maybe that will help you.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it won't help because as we've explained numerous times, this is incoherent. 'Reflect' means to bounce off and travel away in another direction. Objects don't bounce off and travel away from light. Light bounces off and travels away from objects.

There is no blue outside of the optical range. Objects don't bounce off and travel away from light, but non-absorbed light does not exist apart from the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the object is not there, there is no non-absorbed blue light that is traveling toward the photographic film because the light and the object are the opposite side of the coin. You can't have one without the other, although light energy is always traveling.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why? Answer the question! What happens to the traveling blue light if the object ceases to exist while the light is traveling to the eye or camera? Why doesn't it keep on traveling towards it? Where does it go? Does the traveling blue light change direction? Does it cease to exist? Does it change frequency? What happens to it to prevent it from keeping on going as it was before?

I told you, there is no traveling blue light once it is too far away or too dim to be seen. If we can't see an object, then all we get on our retina is white light, or the full visual spectrum. Non-absorbed light disperses. Optics is correct except for this idea that light, without the object present, continues on ad infinitum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not playing anything. It was a serious question.

I guess we're done for today.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no blue outside of the optical range. Objects don't bounce off and travel away from light, but non-absorbed light does not exist apart from the object.

I told you, there is no traveling blue light once it is too far away or too dim to be seen. If we can't see an object, then all we get on our retina is white light, or the full visual spectrum. Non-absorbed light disperses. Optics is correct except for this idea that light, without the object present, continues on ad infinitum.

You still haven't answered the question. The object was within range. It was not too far away or too dim to be seen. So what happens to the traveling blue light to prevent it from continuing towards the film or retina if the blue object ceases to exist during the time that it is traveling? Does the light change direction, change frequency, or cease to exist? What happens to it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess we're done for today.

See you tomorrow then.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then why did you just claim that "light only has to be at the object, not on Earth"? The retina is on Earth. If light has to be at the retina, then light has to be on Earth as well as at the object.

Yes, the retina is on Earth, but the space between the eyes and the object has nothing to do with travel time. It has to do with brightness and size. It does not matter how far away something is; what matters is the requirement that needs to be met for efferent vision to take place.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see where you are confused. Light is at the eye...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Great, so back to my previous question then: For the photons which are at the eye at the very first moment the Sun is ignited, were they ever previously located at the surface of the Sun?

Don't go back to that again, please. Obviously, if the Sun was just turned on it would take a certain amount of seconds for it to become bright enough for us to see it. He was making a distinction between this and light having to travel 8 minutes to Earth. So to answer your question, photons were previously at the Sun. And after all my effort to explain this to you, and you have the gall to turn on me and talk about my mental status? How disgusting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not understanding why efferent vision changes what is seen and why light is at the retina even though it has not traveled to Earth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I cannot understand this point yet because it is the part you keep refusing to explain or address.

Why should I, when if it doesn't meet your approval, you'll turn on me again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

See you tomorrow then.

It depends on how pissed you get me. So far the piss meter is almost at full capacity.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, the retina is on Earth, but the space between the eyes and the object has nothing to do with travel time. It has to do with brightness and size. It does not matter how far away something is; what matters is the requirement that needs to be met for efferent vision to take place.

I'm asking why you said that light only has to be at the object and not at the retina. Why did you say that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't go back to that again, please. Obviously, if the Sun was just turned on it would take a certain amount of seconds for it to become bright enough for us to see it. He was making a distinction between this and light having to travel 8 minutes to Earth. So to answer your questions, photons were previously at the Sun.

Okay. So when were they at the surface of the Sun? How long before the Sun was ignited were these photons at its surface?

The Sun was ignited at 12:00. The photons are at the retina then, at 12:00. When were these photons at the surface of the Sun? At 11:52? Before 11:52? Between 11:52 and 12:00? After 12:00?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you believe that the Hubble deep field proves that we would see Columbus discovering America (a reflection source) if the reflected light from that source happened to strike our eyes, then this conversation would be over. But I believe Lessans was onto something, and that we would not ever be able to see this image because the event is gone.

I am taking relativity into account, but when it comes to sight (according to the efferent account), there is no such thing as seeing something in the past because what we see is always in the present, although we are able to remember what happened in the past due to how the brain stores memories.

I don't believe that light striking our eyes is enough to see an event across 500 light years. It would be too dispersed to resolve on our puny little retina. Nobody ever said that we believe we would see this with our eyes, not even Lessans.

And, a powerful enough telescope to see people or ships or individual events on Earth from 500 light years away has not even been conceived of...I can't even imagine what the math would require such a telescope to look like, or if it is possible with what technology is available to us. This is a stupid example to keep using as it cannot be tested in any way, shape or form with out current technology.

The Hubble images actually, today, show entire galaxies, millions of light years away. That is proof positive that images can be created from traveling light...because that's how the images were created.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This guy doesn't know the first thing about this discovery. He made a clinical diagnosis of me like on the first day I was there? Not only am I not his patient, he is going against normal protocol just because he is assuming that anyone who claims he has the answer to world peace must, in his mind, have a thought disorder. What he has done is extremely unprofessional. He's no different than any other person online who is making premature judgments.

He said Lessans writing indicated a thought disorder, how is that making a clinical diagnosis of you?

[LadyShea]

I am not disputing that light constantly travels. I am disputing that the pattern of light (or the non-absorbed light) is seen beyond the point where it can be resolved, which is always in the optical range of the OBJECT.

So you are disputing something nobody has claimed. That's called a strawman.

And, objects don't have optical ranges

[LadyShea]

Third bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You know, this is a pretty simple thing here, yet you are pointedly ignoring it. Why?

[sadie]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's very true, but again you're missing an important factor in this. If we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, that means we can only move in one direction, and if it gives us less satisfaction to hurt someone under the changed conditions, our problem is solved. If we could move in the direction of lesser satisfaction when a more satisfying option is available, we could then hurt others in spite of a no blame environment, which we are incapable of doing. But when I say a no blame environment, there has to be a transition period so that people know in advance they are no longer going to be blamed by their government or any citizen of the new world. The irony is that if they want to steal, kill, cheat, etc., all they have to do is become a citizen and they will no longer be bound by the laws of their country. But they will be controlled by a much more powerful law; God's law, which will not permit them to perform any action that could hurt another without justification.

I am probably honing in on this God stuff because those anti-religionists at Project Reason have made me sensitized to this issue, but....what exactly is God's law? I am assuming it is a version of the Golden Rule, since that moral precept (in some form) is almost universal. I also assume it is manifested in our conscience.

Here's my problem. I have a very strong conscience (which I think was inculcated by my mother rather than God, but that is beside the point), yet I also have a vicious streak that I also assume is universal. As I pointed out on PR, it would delight me to smack Donald Trump across his silly face. Even if I don't blame Trump for who he is....and I don't.... the fact that he IS still produces aggression in me. I also get angry at inanimate objects. When my computer freezes, I sometimes pound the keys irrationally. I don't feel especially guilty about these transgressions because even Jesus acted like a jerk at time. I mean he was often exasperated by how obtuse his disciples were and he cursed that poor fig tree for no good reason.

So....how is this transformation in the human soul going to take place? Frankly, I don't see much moral progress in civilization yet. When we are well-fed and feel secure, we may seem relatively harmless, but change these conditions and most of us will resume our place in the wild kingdom once again.

Excuse my cynicism, but I am a bit of a history buff and I just finished reading about the French Revolution. The guillotine was bad enough, but taking Marie Antoinette's little boy and torturing him so she could hear him weeping in pain is another.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Tarot cards. You didn't read the first thing. Even in the audio he explains why he predicted 25 years, and under what conditions this would be possible. Even in my book, it's one of the first things that I clarify. What is with people that they spout off anything they want, and it can easily be seen they're ignorant of the facts.

Please note that when the 20th century is mentioned, it is referring to
the time period when this finding was first uncovered. This book was
meant to be read through the eyes of the author. His prediction that
in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the
conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken
place. Although it has been more than 50 years, there has been no
such investigation and, to this day, this discovery remains
unrecognized for its contribution. Due to the time lapse since the
book’s last printing the editor has added some recent examples to show
how these principles apply to our current world situation, but please
be assured that the actual discovery has not been altered in any way
and is explained in the author’s own words. For purposes of
consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the
book. No discrimination was intended.

1. I quoted exactly what you yourself provided from the text.
2. "This book was meant to be read through the eyes of the author." What does this even mean? I'm trained in literature, rhetoric and philosophy, so I pay attention to the words that are put on a page to convey ideas. YOu should know that demanding that a work be read "through the eyes of the author" is not only impossible (all creative art, including linguistic constructs, gain meaning through a dialectic between text and reader, which is precisely why no text or art work can mean only one thing) - it's also a not-so-subtle form of intellectual fascism. It's hedging one's bets; it's stacking the deck to insure that people who disagree simply don't understand because they can't view things "through the author's eyes." Narcissism.

This is part of precisely that endless deferral into the future that makes this characteristic of Tarot car readings or astrological predictions/predictions of the end of the world (as well as its fulfillment or whatever): one can always say "it's coming! it's coming!" with as much or as little regard for historical circumstances and human psychology as one wishes. This is behidn the persistent messianism I read here.

That is absolutely not true. It's quite the opposite. He was comparing an eclipse which does not involve any input from man, and the knowledge he is donating which involves recognition and development in order for the principles to work on man's behalf. You are making more out of this than need be.

Really? Now you're inserting things into the text that weren't even there?!

Originally Posted by traumagurist

Man "has no choice," and yet is "compelled of his own free will." Pure contradiction which, intellectually speaking, is an insult to hundreds of years of thoughtful engagement with and articulation of the paradox of "fate"/destiny/character and free will.

This just shows me how difficult this is. I have gone over this many times, but you are a newcomer so no wonder you would think this comment is pure contradiction. But it is not. There is no insult to anyone here. He had a deep respect for history. There is no paradox between fate/desiny/character and free will, or the ability to choose since we don't actually have free will.

As I have stated before: merely stating we don't have free will is not making a cogent argument that we don't have free will. I think you and this guy Lessans should read some real philosophy on the subject - I'd recommend Schelling's Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom - a difficult but infinitely rewarding text.

I never expected this to just happen, and neither did he. Throughout the book he states that mankind is developing at a certain rate, and we can't get ahead of ourselves. And where in the world did you get the notion that this knowledge discounts anything that has brought us to this point in our history? Everything that man has experienced and gone through up to this point could not have been any other way. Unfortunately, he could not predict exactly when this new world would become a reality because of the multitute of factors involved that would play a role in the timing.

Except that according to what you quote as representative of his thinking, behind his "predictions" there is a religious certainty which creates an unresolved tension in his writing. Which leads us back to the Tarot-Card Syndrome: Lessans creates the out for himself that if no one understands his precepts (which apparently don't require anyone to understand them, since man does not have free will?!), well, then "it just wasn't the right time...but ohhh, that time is coming, you better believe it! You just misread everything!"

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He said Lessans writing indicated a thought disorder, how is that making a clinical diagnosis of you?

To be fair, it is making a backhanded diagnosis in that peacegirl thinks Lessans thinking was perfect. Ergo, she must have a thought disorder. However, anyone that spends anytime exploring peacegirl's ability to reason and comprehend finds that she has very little of either. How could she go all these years, with everyone explaining Lessans errors, and still be so clueless about basic science and reasoning. She can't comprehend, learn or reason. She is doomed to continue for the rest of her life to flail the same old arguments against the same old objections and get nowhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you believe that the Hubble deep field proves that we would see Columbus discovering America (a reflection source) if the reflected light from that source happened to strike our eyes, then this conversation would be over. But I believe Lessans was onto something, and that we would not ever be able to see this image because the event is gone.

I am taking relativity into account, but when it comes to sight (according to the efferent account), there is no such thing as seeing something in the past because what we see is always in the present, although we are able to remember what happened in the past due to how the brain stores memories.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't believe that light striking our eyes is enough to see an event across 500 light years. It would be too dispersed to resolve on our puny little retina. Nobody ever said that we believe we would see this with our eyes, not even Lessans.

That's right. Any light that is too dispersed would be out of visual range. It just so happens that when it is not that dispersed, the event is always present and within our field of view. I know you disagree.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And, a powerful enough telescope to see people or ships or individual events on Earth from 500 light years away has not even been conceived of...I can't even imagine what the math would require such a telescope to look like, or if it is possible with what technology is available to us. This is a stupid example to keep using as it cannot be tested in any way, shape or form with out current technology.

The Hubble images actually, today, show entire galaxies, millions of light years away. That is proof positive that images can be created from traveling light...because that's how the images were created.

If you believe that the Deep Hubble proves that the world could disappear and we would still see it because of traveling light, then that's your prerogative. I don't happen to hold that view. So now we can let it rest.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

To be fair, it is making a backhanded diagnosis in that peacegirl thinks Lessans thinking was perfect. Ergo, she must have a thought disorder. However, anyone that spends anytime exploring peacegirl's ability to reason and comprehend finds that she has very little of either. How could she go all these years, with everyone explaining Lessans errors, and still be so clueless about basic science and reasoning. She can't comprehend, learn or reason. She is doomed to continue for the rest of her life to flail the same old arguments against the same old objections and get nowhere.

...and yet, not only peacegirl, but all of us end up compulsively repeating this thread!

I also want to add, for peacegirl's (theoretical) benefit: one need not be a "patient" to be "analyzed," just as psychotherapists aren't the only ones that need to worry about transferences and projections.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

...and yet, not only peacegirl, but all of us end up compulsively repeating this thread!

I also want to add, for peacegirl's (theoretical) benefit: one need not be a "patient" to be "analyzed," just as psychotherapists aren't the only ones that need to worry about transferences and projections.

Well yes, for some time now the major fascination of peacegirls threads is the Don Quixote quality of all parties involved.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by sadie

I am probably honing in on this God stuff because those anti-religionists at Project Reason have made me sensitized to this issue, but....what exactly is God's law? I am assuming it is a version of the Golden Rule, since that moral precept (in some form) is almost universal. I also assume it is manifested in our conscience.

Here's my problem. I have a very strong conscience (which I think was inculcated by my mother rather than God, but that is beside the point), yet I also have a vicious streak that I also assume is universal. As I pointed out on PR, it would delight me to smack Donald Trump across his silly face. Even if I don't blame Trump for who he is....and I don't.... the fact that he IS still produces aggression in me. I also get angry at inanimate objects. When my computer freezes, I sometimes pound the keys irrationally. I don't feel especially guilty about these transgressions because even Jesus acted like a jerk at time. I mean he was often exasperated by how obtuse his disciples were and he cursed that poor fig tree for no good reason.

So....how is this transformation in the human soul going to take place? Frankly, I don't see much moral progress in civilization yet. When we are well-fed and feel secure, we may seem relatively harmless, but change these conditions and most of us will resume our place in the wild kingdom once again.

Excuse my cynicism, but I am a bit of a history buff and I just finished reading about the French Revolution. The guillotine was bad enough, but taking Marie Antoinette's little boy and torturing him so she could hear him weeping in pain is another.

Sadie, we're definitely human and have human frustrations. But to speak of one's frustration when her computer freezes to a "universal vicious streak" that we cannot alter, are not fair comparisons. I do believe we are all capable, if pressed hard enough, to become vicious. But that same predisposition for negativity can become a force for good, if we're given the right circumstances in which the good can manifest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

1. I quoted exactly what you yourself provided from the text.
2. "This book was meant to be read through the eyes of the author." What does this even mean? I'm trained in literature, rhetoric and philosophy, so I pay attention to the words that are put on a page to convey ideas. YOu should know that demanding that a work be read "through the eyes of the author" is not only impossible (all creative art, including linguistic constructs, gain meaning through a dialectic between text and reader, which is precisely why no text or art work can mean only one thing) - it's also a not-so-subtle form of intellectual fascism. It's hedging one's bets; it's stacking the deck to insure that people who disagree simply don't understand because they can't view things "through the author's eyes." Narcissism.

I was deciding whether to keep that sentence. I kept it because I wanted people to realize that he lived in a different time period and to try to put themselves in his place. His wording was a little old-fashioned and I didn't want people to use that against him, and I wanted to try to get people to see, through his eyes, the difficulties he encountered during his lifetime in bringing this knowledge to light. I appreciate your critique though.

Originally Posted by Tramaturist

This is part of precisely that endless deferral into the future that makes this characteristic of Tarot car readings or astrological predictions/predictions of the end of the world (as well as its fulfillment or whatever): one can always say "it's coming! it's coming!" with as much or as little regard for historical circumstances and human psychology as one wishes. This is behidn the persistent messianism I read here.

But if he's right, this knowledge is messianic, and it does predict that a Golden Age is going to be upon us relatively shortly. This is very much in regard to historical circumstances and human psychology, and if you understood anything he wrote you would easily see this. You obviously have insight, so why don't you give it a whirl before passing judgment on this book, like so many others have done.

Originally Posted by tramaturist

Furthermore, the author writes: "my prediction that all
war will come to a permanent end in the next 25 years [is] equivalent to the one a philanthropist makes that a certain university will receive a donation of one million dollars on a given date because he is the one who intends to donate this money on that date" (my italics). Note the logic here: if one follows it to its logical end, the author does not need anyone to agree with him to end all war in 25 years since, as "philanthropist," he has, by analogy, the "money" to make it happen himself. Otherwise the very brazen analogy falls on its face. So why, then, does he need people to understand his precepts? In fact, the last paragraph relies very heavily on the people he simultaneously does not need.

That is absolutely not true. It's quite the opposite. He was comparing an eclipse which does not involve any input from man, and the knowledge he is donating which involves recognition and development in order for the principles to work on man's behalf. You are making more out of this than need be.

Originally Posted by traumaturist"Really? Now you're inserting things into the text that weren't even there?![/quote]

I know what he meant traumaturist. You don't have to patronize me. In donating something that has to be applied, you cannot make a perfect prediction because there are so many variables. Predicting an eclipse is much easier because it is not dependent on human behavior.

[quote="traumagurist

Man "has no choice," and yet is "compelled of his own free will." Pure contradiction which, intellectually speaking, is an insult to hundreds of years of thoughtful engagement with and articulation of the paradox of "fate"/destiny/character and free will.

This just shows me how difficult this is. I have gone over this many times, but you are a newcomer so no wonder you would think this comment is pure contradiction. But it is not. There is no insult to anyone here. He had a deep respect for history. There is no paradox between fate/desiny/character and free will, or the ability to choose since we don't actually have free will.

Originally Posted by traumaturist

As I have stated before: merely stating we don't have free will is not making a cogent argument that we don't have free will. I think you and this guy Lessans should read some real philosophy on the subject - I'd recommend Schelling's Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom - a difficult but infinitely rewarding text.

I am sure there is no real disagreement between what Lessans says, "Doing something of one's own free will", and the essense of human freedom. But again, semantics can really get in the way of the truth. I already see that you've developed a negative attitude toward me the minute you say: You and this guy Lessans should read some real philosophy on the subject." How demeaning can one be when "this guy" has made a discovery that can prevent war and crime, and all the other evils plaguing mankind. That's gonna put a real damper on our ability to communicate in any positive way.

I never expected this to just happen, and neither did he. Throughout the book he states that mankind is developing at a certain rate, and we can't get ahead of ourselves. And where in the world did you get the notion that this knowledge discounts anything that has brought us to this point in our history? Everything that man has experienced and gone through up to this point could not have been any other way. Unfortunately, he could not predict exactly when this new world would become a reality because of the multitute of factors involved that would play a role in the timing.

Originally Posted by traumaturist

Except that according to what you quote as representative of his thinking, behind his "predictions" there is a religious certainty which creates an unresolved tension in his writing. Which leads us back to the Tarot-Card Syndrome: Lessans creates the out for himself that if no one understands his precepts (which apparently don't require anyone to understand them, since man does not have free will?!), well, then "it just wasn't the right time...but ohhh, that time is coming, you better believe it! You just misread everything!"

I am sorry that just because he was certain of his knowledge, you are just as certain that he must be wrong. His prediction is solid and remains so. But you will not understand why unless you have an understanding of why this new age of peace and prosperity cannot be stopped. It is an inevitability, which is based on the untapped knowledge that lies behind the door marked "man's will is not free."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

...and yet, not only peacegirl, but all of us end up compulsively repeating this thread!

I also want to add, for peacegirl's (theoretical) benefit: one need not be a "patient" to be "analyzed," just as psychotherapists aren't the only ones that need to worry about transferences and projections.

People analyze other people all the time, but there is a danger in diagnosing people online in a non-clinical setting. It is very hurtful to be cast in a certain light when it's a malevolent attack intended to cause harm. What if i was weak and took to heart what NA said about me? People have to be careful what they say because they don't know how a negative comment could affect someone. I am not weak and I can ignore him and others. But you never know how your words might cause lasting damage that leaves indelible scars. People often take things to heart even though the person speaking is anonymous and hiding behind a computer screen. Look at the poor kids who have been bullied online. This is no different.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People analyze other people all the time, but there is a danger in diagnosing people online in a non-clinical setting. It is very hurtful to be cast in a certain light when it's a malevolent attack intended to cause harm. What if i was weak and took to heart what NA said about me? People have to be careful what they say because they don't know how a negative comment could affect someone. I am not weak and I can ignore him and others. But you never know how your words might cause lasting damage that leaves indelible scars. People often take things to heart even though the person speaking is anonymous and hiding behind a computer screen. Look at the poor kids who have been bullied online. This is no different.

peacegirl, Lessans claimed to have diagnose the ills of the world and have a prescription to treat it, all with a 7th grade education and the vast experience in life afforded to an aluminum siding salesman and pool champion. So you of all people should not be bothered for one second if people with no better preparation try to diagnose and treat you. After all, in the new world anyone who thinks they can be a doctor is, ***POOOF***, a doctor.

[Vivisectus]

No Vivisectus. It doesn't work that way. We cannot predict behavior in this fashion. This does not mean the observation that we always move in this direction is wrong. It just tells us that we cannot predict all of the antecedent factors that will compel a person to desire one choice over another at any given moment in time.

It means, as you have just admitted, that we have no way of testing if it is true.

That is very true, but it's not our business to know what gives someone greater satisfaction. The only thing this knowledge is able to predict is that under the changed conditions, no one will desire to strike a first blow when not to strike becomes the preferable choice. Paradoxically, part of achieving this revolutionary change in conduct comes from not judging what is right for someone else.

No, now you are dragging something else into the discussion that you also have not been able to prove: that it is blame that allows justification of bad deeds, and that justification is required to do bad deeds. This, the second part of the books solution, is also unproven.

The first: the assertion that we always choose what is most satisfying, is unproven as well as we have already shown.

Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is not a prediction. It's a statement of fact. It is a description of the direction we all are compelled to move. That's it. If you keep this in mind, maybe it will be easier to understand how the two-sided equation works.

It is not a statement of fact at all: we have already shown that there is no way to test if it is true. It is a statement of faith.

No it is not.

denial alone means nothing. Worse: it is an admission that you are wrong, but unwilling to admit it.

This is why this book will never, ever take off. It claims to prove all kinds of things... and then fails to actually provide the proof. You and your father are worse than stupid: you are frauds. You claim knowledge and to have done research, but you are forever unable to produce it, to show your methods, to provide the data. That is not just getting it wrong: that is being a charlatan and a fraud.

If this is not the case then please provide me with your fathers research. His noted, his methods, his data. Also provide me with the data of your alleged research into "safety", your methodology, and the resulting data. I know you cannot, because like your father you lie (poorly) to make yourself seem more important.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still haven't answered the question. The object was within range. It was not too far away or too dim to be seen. So what happens to the traveling blue light to prevent it from continuing towards the film or retina if the blue object ceases to exist during the time that it is traveling? Does the light change direction, change frequency, or cease to exist? What happens to it?

Bump.