A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what the dispute is about Spacemonkey.

Yes, I know that. Try reading the full post before responding. The problem is that you say these photons were previously at the surface of the Sun but you can't explain when they could possibly have been there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can we agree if you state that the photons have to be on Earth which involves time?

You agree that the photons have to be at the retina on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited. Whether or not this takes time is what my question is designed to investigate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That would negate the possibility that we see in real time. Why can't we all wait for scientists to take this claim seriously in order to determine if the eyes are, in fact, efferent? Then we can worry about the mechanics of it; i.e., how it is possible to see in real time if light from the Sun hasn't reached Earth yet. I don't think there is a gaping flaw at all. I think you are stuck on the afferent mode, believing that light has to independently travel to Earth for us to see objects. Although it sounds logical coming from the afferent perspective, in the case of efferent vision the logic is flawed. When and if this claim is ever checked out will be the time to further this discussion. Until then, I'm going to be viewed as a fundie, and it's not in my best interest to continue when there's no hope of ever finding out the truth in this thread.

More waffling and avoidance of both the problem and my question. You don't have to wait for further investigation. You can investigate the plausibility of your claims for yourself right here and now by answering my question.

You say that in Lessans' newly ignited Sun example there will be photons at the retina on Earth at the very moment (12:00) that the Sun is first ignited, and that these photons came from and were previously located at the surface of the Sun. So when could they have been located at the Sun? (Pick an answer and we can see if it works)

a) Before 11:52.
b) Between 11:52 and 12:00
c) At 12:00
d) Sometime after 12:00

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

The (literary) theory I do revolves around the idea that a text can never be reduced to any one of its possible interpretations; it is less a concrete statement of a canonical fact and more of an "event" - a meeting of a book, street sign, ad billboard, discourse, etc. and its interpreting subject, a meeting which never culminates in a final interpretation but is always provisional and subject to revision. Psychoanalysis calls this "interminable analysis" - the fact (somewhat unsettling to Freud, who resisted this fact of his own theory even as he endorsed it) that one never really arrives at "The Truth" in analysis, because there is always interpretation, always revision, always "further to go" in an analysis. Freud once remarked playfully, if sardonically, that a treatment ends "when the money runs out!" Similarly, a discussion of a text or its interpretation ends once people get tired .

Q. How many Freudian psychoanalysts does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. Only one, but it can take a lifetime and the bulb has to really want to change.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So the question becomes, why? I mean, you know what they call pursuing the same course of action repeatedly and expecting a different result, right?

Republican presidential election strategy?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How long does it take for us to see a candle that is lit? It's instant.

See, this is where Lessans (and you) went astray. It is not instant. It just appears to happen instantly because the speed of light is so great and the distance at which the candle can be seen is so short that the time interval between when the candle is lit and the light can be seen is, for all practical purposes, immeasurably small. However, immeasurably small is not the same thing as instantaneous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, I know that. Try reading the full post before responding. The problem is that you say these photons were previously at the surface of the Sun but you can't explain when they could possibly have been there.

You agree that the photons have to be at the retina on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited. Whether or not this takes time is what my question is designed to investigate.

I did not say that. I said that if the object is within optical range, the non-absorbed light is at the retina instantly or we wouldn't be able to see said object, but these photons which provide a mirror image based on the requirements of efferent vision, do not have to travel 8 minutes to Earth first.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That would negate the possibility that we see in real time. Why can't we all wait for scientists to take this claim seriously in order to determine if the eyes are, in fact, efferent? Then we can worry about the mechanics of it; i.e., how it is possible to see in real time if light from the Sun hasn't reached Earth yet. I don't think there is a gaping flaw at all. I think you are stuck on the afferent mode, believing that light has to independently travel to Earth for us to see objects. Although it sounds logical coming from the afferent perspective, in the case of efferent vision the logic is flawed. When and if this claim is ever checked out will be the time to further this discussion. Until then, I'm going to be viewed as a fundie, and it's not in my best interest to continue when there's no hope of ever finding out the truth in this thread.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

More waffling and avoidance of both the problem and my question. You don't have to wait for further investigation. You can investigate the plausibility of your claims for yourself right here and now by answering my question.

Stop accusing me of waffling. It is necessary to wait for further investigation to determine the validity of efferent vision, because it is this projecting function of the brain that provides the plausibility of this account.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You say that in Lessans' newly ignited Sun example there will be photons at the retina on Earth at the very moment (12:00) that the Sun is first ignited, and that these photons came from and were previously located at the surface of the Sun. So when could they have been located at the Sun? (Pick an answer and we can see if it works)

a) Before 11:52.
b) Between 11:52 and 12:00
c) At 12:00
d) Sometime after 12:00

I did not say that photons will be on Earth. I've never disputed the fact that it takes 8 minutes for light to arrive. Where have you been Spacemonkey? You're changing what I said so that you can easily negate what would be an impossibility. Light travels at a finite speed; therefore it takes 8 minutes for photons from the Sun to arrive on earth, but this has nothing to do with the function of the brain and why we get a mirror image of the external world the minute we open our eyes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

See, this is where Lessans (and you) went astray. It is not instant. It just appears to happen instantly because the speed of light is so great and the distance at which the candle can be seen is so short that the time interval between when the candle is lit and the light can be seen is, for all practical purposes, immeasurably small. However, immeasurably small is not the same thing as instantaneous.

But that's wrong Angakuk. This is a correct analogy because it shows that the object (the candle) is within optical range. You cannot move a candle out of optical range and get an image. Again, what you are saying is the logic of the afferent account, but I'm offering a completely different but plausible model of sight. Until this claim of efferent vision gains attention, the resentment that people feel toward Lessans will only get worse.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet you haven't answered my question at all. You are instead refusing to discuss it after saying that you were willing to do so. How was that not lying to me?

You asked me one question on the other site. I answered it. I don't have to continue on just because you can't figure it out, and you're bothered by it. I'm glad you're bothered because it means that at the very least you aren't throwing the possibility out. But it's not worth it for me to continue. I want to get back to his first discovery, which you seem to care very little about.

[LadyShea]

I said that if the object is within optical range

Lessans stated that the newly ignited Sun would be seen at noon, so that means in this scenario your made up "optical range" requirement is meant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the non-absorbed light

Not a factor in Lessans "Sun turned on at noon" scenario

is at the retina instantly

So, in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon, is light from the Sun physically located on the retina at noon?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

these photons which provide a mirror image based on the requirements of efferent vision, do not have to travel 8 minutes to Earth first.

How is it that they are located on the retina at noon. Where did the photons on the retina originate?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that photons will be on Earth

Are photons on the retina or camera film at noon when the Sun is ignited at noon? Is the retina or camera film on Earth?
If yes, then you did say photons will be on Earth.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You asked me one question on the other site. I answered it. I don't have to continue on just because you can't figure it out, and you're bothered by it. I'm glad you're bothered because it means that at the very least you aren't throwing the possibility out. But it's not worth it for me to continue. I want to get back to his first discovery, which you seem to care very little about.

You abandoned the second thread where we were discussing the first "discovery". Feel free to go back and resume it by answering questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Again - why bother communicating this knowledge if your prophecy is inevitable? Oh, I forgot...that whole paradox of a sure thing needing people to help it into being. You don't do really well with paradoxes.

It is inevitable that this new world is going to come about but the timing cannot be ascertained definitively. Mankind is moving at a mathematical rate and we cannot get ahead of ourselves. First, this law must be confirmed valid by science. Once it is established that man does not have free will, and that as a result we have the understanding to create a world of peace and brotherhood, we will be compelled to apply this knowledge because it is inevitable that we move in the direction of what is best for ourselves, not worse. But this does require understanding and development. Why do you think I'm working so hard to get this knowledge brought to light, so that the Great Transition to a new way of life can commence?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

it is this projecting function of the brain that provides the plausibility of this account.

What projecting function? What is being projected and how? Define "projected"

[LadyShea]

It is necessary to wait for further investigation to determine the validity of efferent vision,

Why wait? Spacemoneky is helping you investigate it now. It's not at all plausible as has been presented so far

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You abandoned the second thread where we were discussing the first "discovery". Feel free to go back and resume it by answering questions.

As much as I want to discuss his first discovery, unless there are new people in here to bring life to the conversation, I'm not going back to you telling me that the greater satisfaction principle is no more than a tautology, and that his definition of determinism is a modal fallacy, and that everything I have explained is an mere asssertion. It's a waste of my time.

[LadyShea]

Then why did you exhort Spacemonkey to discuss the first discovery? Where do you want to discuss it if not here at ?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why wait? Spacemoneky is helping you investigate it now. It's not at all plausible as has been presented so far

It is very plausible, and I think that the reason people won't get off of this topic is because they're not sure, otherwise, they wouldn't keep bringing it up.

[LadyShea]

They bring it up because it is the only set of claims you have that can be (and has been) tested and investigated using science.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why did you exhort Spacemonkey to discuss the first discovery? Where do you want to discuss it if not here at ?

Maybe at the other site. I noticed I'm reinstated. I cannot make any progress here because of the unfair refutations that prevent me from progressing. If you keep telling me that this principle is just an assertion (which it is anything but), I can't help but be frustrated because you're taking it upon yourself to discredit him unfairly and people assume you must be right. If I left this thread today, people would drop this discovery like a hot potato and move on to the next thread, which just goes to show how little people are thinking for themselves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They bring it up because it is the only set of claims you have that can be (and has been) tested and investigated using science.

You always did think that his observations on determinism were nothing special. But they are special if his observations are accurate, and they are essential to creating a world of peace. So I wouldn't discount them so quickly as you've been doing. The knowledge of determinism is huge, and that's why I am not interested in discussing the eyes until his first discovery is confirmed.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So, yes, I have been doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results because people are different. But now I am losing all hope that any philosophy forum will be open-minded enough to contain their skepticism enough to really give this man the benefit of the doubt. After all these pages, no one has seriously studied this work. It sounds unbelievable but it's true. How wrong and unfair a person can be made out to be.

Well, that does it.

It's been fun, but I am soooo done with this thread (and not in the peacegirl way). Peacegirl, I have continually seen you dodge and evade important questions that would most certainly hamper your self-styled martyrdom, and while I realize that this entire thread has only strengthened your utopian fundamentlalism (and have realized that from day one), the novelty has quite frankly worn off. I'll check in from time to time to see what the state of the intellectual exchange is (lolz), but I will try my best to stifle the residual idealism that makes me want to jump in and critique faulty argument, magical thinking that pretends to empirical fact and the fundamentalist refusal to admit that no system of human knowledge - scientific, religious, philosophical or otherwise - is perfect.

In terms of our specific "dialogues": not only have I watched you make massive assumptions along the lines of magical thinking ("I have said it, therefore it is true" - the logic of neurosis), but I have seen you systematically refuse to engage with any ideas outside of Lessans' narrow circle - which demonstrates either naivete, intellectual dishonesty, or both - I don't know which, and I don't really care at this point. If you are a representative of Lessans' thought (and you insist you are), you have convinced me - especially after reading, or trying to read the first few pages of his book - that he is a bit player, a dyslexic understudy in the theatre of human ideas. As a literary scholar with a background in theory and philosophy I can't, haven't and won't speak to the scientific debates here, but from my own fields of knowledge I can say that his kind are a dime a dozen, and as a scholar I've had the odd pleasure of engaging them from time to time - albeit none that I've seen have as fundamentalist a follower as you.

So you go ahead and keep martyring yourself. Keep refusing to acknowledge the possibility that, looking back on all the hundreds of messages you've posted across all the different forums to all the different people, the problem just might lie with you. Keep refusing to comprehend the fact that one can understand what Lessans is saying and yet not only disagree with him, but prove that aspects of his thought are sloppy and sophomoric. Keep believing that your father can do absolutely no wrong. Keep wandering the Internet assuming your Jesus Christ pose, searching for that utopian community who always already thinks like you, who won't think you're in a "dreamland." Quite frankly, the intellectual foreplay has become boring, with no possibility of joy at the end. Maybe you should stick to children's books.

There. I've given you the perfect out - you can go ahead and dismiss me and all the critiques I've raised because I'm "angry" - at you, at Lessans, at the world, at who or whatever. I won't mind.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot make any progress here because of the unfair refutations that prevent me from progressing.

You are the one making the claims, you are the one that needs to support them against questions and criticisms. Questioning and refuting claims is in no way, shape, or form unfair. If you can't take the heat, you shouldn't be in the kitchen.

Support Your Claims

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you keep telling me that this principle is just an assertion (which it is anything but)

The definition of assertion is a strong and confident statement of fact or belief. So Lessans made many assertions as have you. As do we all. Your job, as the one with the claims, is to support those assertions with evidence and argument.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't help but be frustrated because you're taking it upon yourself to discredit him unfairly and people assume you must be right

I have no power to discredit Lessans. Are you using a weird definition of the word discredit too?

I am also not being unfair in any way. You and I have equal power to say what we think. I can't help if others agree or disagree with either of us.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I left this thread today, people would drop this discovery like a hot potato and move on to the next thread, which just goes to show how little people are thinking for themselves.

How is it evidence of groupthink rather than evidence for, as I've stated to you plainly, your being the draw to this thread? Nobody thinks there is any discovery, they do think you are an interesting kook.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's wrong Angakuk.

No it isn't. Angakuk's observations are Spot On.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is inevitable that this new world is going to come about but the timing cannot be ascertained definitively. Mankind is moving at a mathematical rate and we cannot get ahead of ourselves. First, this law must be confirmed valid by science. Once it is established that man does not have free will, and that as a result we have the understanding to create a world of peace and brotherhood, we will be compelled to apply this knowledge because it is inevitable that we move in the direction of what is best for ourselves, not worse. But this does require understanding and development. Why do you think I'm working so hard to get this knowledge brought to light, so that the Great Transition to a new way of life can commence?

Unfortunately, your mathematics deal with nothing but imaginary numbers.

[Vivisectus]

For anyone late to the party it is perhaps worth the time to point out why this book and this thread go just a little further than your average crackpot-with-a-manifesto soapbox entertainment.

For starters, while many a man has written a barely readable piece of garbage they believed would solve all man's ills, few people have managed to lace it with quite as much self-praise as ole Seymour did. It has such fabulous instances as a supposedly fiendishly hard math problem no mathematician could ever solve, which was not only easily solved by a member of this board, but the answer to which he printed in the book turned out to be wrong. There is the story of the rude professor who would not even listen to Seymour explain how his own education (I think he never even finished high-school) was superior to that of a university professor... which is funny, as Seymour had no idea what kind of research that professor has been doing up to that point, and yet somehow it is the professor who was biased. There is no doubt at any point that he could have been wrong about anything, ever, and that he is a great benefactor to all mankind who will one day be universally admired and revered.

Then there are the wonderful times when, like a bad conjurer at a childrens party, he announces that he will proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that we cannot do bad things without justification... and promptly gets so lost in his own self-congratulatory prose that he does not even seem to notice that he forgot to include this proof. It seems he is so busy trying to make himself sound important by trying to imitate the sonorous cadences of the likes of Gibbon that he loses track of what he is supposed to be doing. Sounding important is much more important to him than conveying any kind of substance. If that was not the case, he would have noticed he forgot to actually prove what he said he was going to prove because he got lost in his own ham-fisted parentheses.

I will dig up the relevant passage if people feel up to the eye-bleed inflicting cumbersome prose, (and I believe I have pointed it out before), but he actually promises iron-clad proof... and then seems to forget about it entirely and carries on as if he has proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. He is like a character that Sterne left on the cutting floor of Tristram Shandy for being to stuffy and boring.

But the true comedy gold comes when we hit relationships. Once a boy is attracted to a girl and they have sex, they will stay together forever, a bit like albatrosses do. Things get a but vague here, since while on the one hand words like "ugly" will have simply been excised from our collective vocabulary and will therefor lead to us not seeing anyone as pretty or ugly anymore, girls will nevertheless all wear very skimpy clothing.

One girl being pretty much the same as any other at this stage, our young lad will simply "fall in love with the other persons genitalia" (since sex is the real basis of all love" and bob's your uncle. Perhaps the skimpy clothing is there to make sure people can see their sexy bits, which will still be considered pretty. Some things it may be better not to inquire in too deeply, as we may not like the answer at all.

Anyway, apparently young people will wear a lot of revealing clothing to accommodate this, and apparently it is impossible to be romantically involved with someone who has no genitalia that can give you an orgasm: homosexuality, which is apparently a sexual abberation, will become quite rare, along with all other mental illnesses and abnormalities. I am sure the gay community is overjoyed that a cure has finally been found for their terrible condition.

Bad news for paraplegics: they are to be forever alone, since they have to way of giving or receiving sexual gratification, and it is not possible to feel true love if there is no chance of getting your rocks off every now and again. Also, it is a mystery how all those gay people have managed to live fulfilling sex lives for all this time when one or the other must clearly have the wrong plumbing for the other person to fall in love with. Thank god we now have this glorious benefactor of mankind to help all these poor loveless freaks find true happiness, even if it involves convincing them they do not already have it first.

Perhaps the finest example of Lessanese thinking is his "rules of the road" that is going to solve the great evil of divorce once and for all. It goes like this: if one partner asks another partner to do something that they could do themselves, then that counts as advance blaming: it is making the other person refuse, while there is no reason why the person doing the asking could not have sorted it out themselves. This leads to resentment and bad blood in the relationship.

So, if a woman asks a man for help prepare dinner (an example from the book, I did not make this up) while the man would rather go and see a movie, then that is advance blaming: the man is not asking anything from the woman to satisfy his desire to see a movie, but the woman IS asking the man to give up doing what he wants to do in order to satisfy her desire to get some help preparing dinner.

This is an infallible "right of way" system. If people follow it, there will be no more resentment in marriages.

Oddly enough though, this same rule of the road would apply to a woman who would like her husband to attend the birth of their child in stead of going golfing. Since her desire to have someone else there requires him to give up his desire to to and golf, this would be wrong of her according to these rules as she is perfectly capable of sorting that out herself. But I am assured by PG that "That just would not happen" so that is OK then I suppose. It would also mean that my desire to smoke crack cocaine all day, which only involves me, supersedes my families desire for me to be reasonably compos mentis. But despite this, PG assures me that it is still a universal rule that will lead to marital bliss for all. I guess it is pure fluke that I managed to stay happily married for 12 years and have never been divorced, and I should bow to Peacegirls superior expertise in this field.

The best one yet is Lessans take on sexuality. Simply stating that one is horny and would appreciate engaging in the ancient congress of the vaccilating burrow-snake is a bad thing: if the other partner were to decline that would lead to resentment. In stead, the gentleman of a frisky persuasion is to lounge around the house wearing, and again I am not making this up, "Sexy jackets or translucent robes" which would someone lead to arousal in both partners simultaneously without any one of the two having to initiate the desired rumpy-pumpy. Calls for an example of a sexy jacket have so far remained unanswered, much to my disappointment.

That wearing your special sex-hat and designated suspenders of randiness is just as much an invitation as saying "Darling, I feel an urgent need to make sure those bed-springs are still fully functional" seems to have never crossed his tiny overheated mind, which I presume was still full of 14-year olds wearing skimpy clothing, which he felt sure was going to be a feature of the glorious new future.

So far beyond the wonderous discovery that the eyes receive mirror images without time passing from objects that can be seen when they are close enough and bright enough to be seen (a phrase that only a true curmudgeon could point as as meaning" things that can be seen, can be seen) this book is a goldmine, a cornucopia, a true and lasting gift to mankind. If it was merely ignorant, it would be tragically sad. But it is not: it is deep, stupefying ignorance presented with such self-satisfaction and arrogance that it becomes a work of brilliant satire. It is like the two mumbling drunks from the "Shut up little man!" tapes were trying to market their rantings as relationship-counselling. It is like O'Reilly wrote a book explaining to have cracked the mystery of where tides come from. It is like the Insane Clown Posse wrote a science primer.

Sometimes it is hard to tell where reality ends and satire begins. This is one of those instances. Lessans and his disciple are either deeply ignorant, or bloody hillarious.

[Vivisectus]

Double poast

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

the ancient congress of the vaccilating burrow-snake

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is like the Insane Clown Posse wrote a science primer.

..................