A revolution in thought

[sadie]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what a nanny-state is, but I am very grateful that you see my side of things. I really thought they were fixing the website due to mechanical issues. They gave me no explanation as to why they cut me off the way they did. I don't want you to leave on account of me, but I have to say that you are the most honest person over there, and you defended me by not allowing them to dismiss me the way they did. What grounds did they have other than they didn't like what I had to say? I really don't get it. We're in an age where prejudice is suppose to be a thing of the past, but I don't see it that way. I went there because it's suppose to be rational debate. I think Sam Harris would be horrified. Anyone who read that thread could see that I was the one being bullied, not them. Kudos to you Sadie for being the strong person you are, and being true to yourself!

I don't mean this in a harsh way, Peacegirl, but I was not fighting for you as much as I was fighting against injustice. I am pleased to see that you are reinstated because your suspension was not fair, imo, of course.

Thanks for praising me for being "true to myself", but sometimes I think I am simply a contrarian. Also, I am a bit of a misfit on PR because the majority of them are atheists and I am a failed theist-wannabe. I accept, but am puzzled by people who don't want there to be "something more".

Anyway, I've become used to sword-fighting several people at once. Sometimes I just flail away and kick, but I don't give up.

Hmmm....maybe we're a bit alike, Peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by sadie

I accept, but am puzzled by people who don't want there to be "something more".

Something more than what? The Universe isn't big and unknown and awesome enough?

[thedoc]

Edward Hays wrote several books that are collections of Parables, one describe the journey of 3 wise men followint a star. The short verson, in the end after a long trip, they stopped in a small village and started giving their treasures away. They didn't find Christmas, they became Christmas. In the same way perhaps God didn't create the Universe as a seperate thing from himself, what if God became the Universe as an expression of himself?

'Chin Lin' is one of my favorite stories in his series of books, it is in this exerpt,

Twelve and One-Half Keys - * Edward Hays ~ Author, Artist & Storyteller

[sadie]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Something more than what? The Universe isn't big and unknown and awesome enough?

No. Injustice bothers me. I used to work with the mentally ill, some of whom had lives of unrelenting misery. I would like very much for them to receive a reward of some kind, whether it be the "peace that passeth understanding" or a gold star and applause from the angels in Heaven.

Actually, I think it may be a matter of temperament. When I was born and the doctor smacked my ass, I suspect I cried in existential anguish.

[sadie]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Edward Hays wrote several books that are collections of Parables, one describe the journey of 3 wise men followint a star. The short verson, in the end after a long trip, they stopped in a small village and started giving their treasures away. They didn't find Christmas, they became Christmas. In the same way perhaps God didn't create the Universe as a seperate thing from himself, what if God became the Universe as an expression of himself?

'Chin Lin' is one of my favorite stories in his series of books, it is in this exerpt,

Twelve and One-Half Keys - * Edward Hays ~ Author, Artist & Storyteller

I like that, doc. Actually, I've been browsing into panentheism and process theology. At this point, however, nothing makes my heart sing.

I did like your little story, though. I never heard of Edward Hays. He feels like one of those people whose lap I would like to sit upon, as he caressed my hair.

Middle-aged women with daddy issues are so charming, aren't they?

However, we provide most of the charitable services in the world, so they, too, should be appreciated.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You asked me one question on the other site. I answered it.

What question do you imagine you've answered? The question I've been asking you, both at PR and here at FF, is when the photons at the retina on Earth were previously located at the Sun. You've done nothing at all but evade and refuse to answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to continue on just because you can't figure it out, and you're bothered by it.

That's not the case at all. YOU are the one you can't figure out your own claims, and are pointedly refusing to even try.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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 said you would answer my question. Was that a lie?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

There is no absorption/non-absorption in this example. But you are saying that there will be light instantly at the retina on Earth, so you are saying exactly what I just said - that the photons have to be and are at the retina on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited.

You have also said that they were previously located at the Sun, so for your claims to be plausible there must be some specifiable time at which they could have been located there, right?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Stop waffling then, and just answer my question. It is not necessary to wait for further investigation, for you can investigate this with me right now. Whatever plausibility you think projecting might bring to the table is presently completely destroyed by the hopeless implausibility of your claims about these photons at the retina which you refuse to discuss.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You did say the photons will be on Earth. The retina is on Earth, and you've said there will be photons at that retina on Earth instantly at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited. I asked where they came from, and you said they were previously located at the surface of the Sun. Is there some part of this that you wish to change or retract?

If not, then please answer 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) At 11:52.
c) Between 11:52 and 12:00
d) At 12:00
e) Sometime after 12:00

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by sadie

No. Injustice bothers me. I used to work with the mentally ill, some of whom had lives of unrelenting misery.

That really sucks. And seriously the world we live in is a complete shithole for the crap like that that goes on for no reason. But it makes more sense to me as an unfortunate accident than actually some guys handiwork. If something made shit like this... What the fuck is its problem? And giving someone a treat after a meaningless long life of misery does fuckall to make up for anything.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by Crumb

That really sucks. And seriously the world we live in is a complete shithole for the crap like that that goes on for no reason. But it makes more sense to me as an unfortunate accident than actually some guys handiwork. If something made shit like this... What the fuck is its problem? And giving someone a treat after a meaningless long life of misery does fuckall to make up for anything.

This is what the theological/philosophical notion of theodicy is meant to address: namely, the justification of "evil" in a world created by (an ostensibly "good") God/deity. Not to open a whole new can of worms, but aren't we assuming an anthropomorphic line of argument for a deity which cannot be reduced to such - in the Christian framework or otherwise?

I'm certainly no Christian, but this is precisely why I think the Book of Job is one of the most significant, intriguing and absolutely profound books of the Bible...it's the source of more discomfiting and troubling aspects of God than good, church-going Christians can shake their comforting rods and staves at!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

While it is true that the photons have to be at the retina there is no necessity that they be there instantly. That is simply a condition that you and Lessans have invented as part of the argument for real-time vision. I can edit your statement like this, "if the object is within optical range, the non-absorbed light is at the retina or we wouldn't be able to see said object...", and it would be correct. The 'instantly' is simply unnecessary and its inclusion makes the statement incorrect.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Different, yes. Plausible? Not even a little bit. Plausible and imaginable are not synonymous.

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?

What if this "law" is never confirmed valid by science? Given that scientists are universally close minded, mean spirited and dogmatic authoritarians who invariably close ranks against any new ideas that might challenge the existing orthodoxy, this is a very real possibility.

Bad boy, bad boy
Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do
When they won't listen to you?

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.

It's odd that you should say that. When you came back here, after your brief hiatus, wasn't it because people were still saying stuff in this thread, even though you weren't here? So which is it? Are we going to drop the thread like a hot potato or are we going to keep on bad-mouthing you and Lessans behind your back.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Double poast

But well worth saying twice.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Dragar

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

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

This is what the theological/philosophical notion of theodicy is meant to address: namely, the justification of "evil" in a world created by (an ostensibly "good") God/deity. Not to open a whole new can of worms, but aren't we assuming an anthropomorphic line of argument for a deity which cannot be reduced to such - in the Christian framework or otherwise?

I'm certainly no Christian, but this is precisely why I think the Book of Job is one of the most significant, intriguing and absolutely profound books of the Bible...it's the source of more discomfiting and troubling aspects of God than good, church-going Christians can shake their comforting rods and staves at!

That's kind of the point, at least from my perspective. If this world is the result of a Creator or Creators, the best that can be said for them is that the Creator(s) clearly don't care about our piddling lives. Or they do care, but can't do anything of significance -- for some unfathomable reason. Either way, I'm utterly mystified as to why anyone would think that such beings should be worshipped.


If the Universe is created, then the Creator(s) would surely have about as much in common with us as we do with bacteria anyway. In any event, in the very unlikely event that the Universe was created, it seems to be overwhelmingly obvious that the Creator(s) don't care about us and/or don't know about us -- either way, we're on our own.

Personally, I've got much better things to worry about than hypothetical deities for which I've yet to see a single shred of evidence. There are far too many questions out there that we can address, and so I'm not terribly concerned with spending time on questions that we can't address.

Do god(s) exist? Probably not, but who can say? As far as I'm concerned, it's a lot like asking what color the sky is on the third planet of the star Zeta Orionis -- pointless, since we lack the relevant data.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

YOU don't understand the efferent version of sight which you are still failing to explain. Your account is and remains completely contradictory, as you've proven every time you've tried to answer my questions about it only to contradict yourself in the process. If you think the problem is my lack of understanding, then how am I supposed to overcome this when you refuse to actually answer my questions about how it is supposed to work?

That the light is already at the eye is not the issue. Your problem is that you have no explanation for where that light came from or how it got there. The afferent account can explain where light at the retina came from and how it got there. Your efferent account cannot, and that is why it fails.

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

I'm certainly no Christian, but this is precisely why I think the Book of Job is one of the most significant, intriguing and absolutely profound books of the Bible...it's the source of more discomfiting and troubling aspects of God than good.

Interesting you should mention the book of Job, I really enjoyed the study of that one. When you get down to it, it really had a simple message.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what a nanny-state is, but I am very grateful that you see my side of things. I really thought they were fixing the website due to mechanical issues. They gave me no explanation as to why they cut me off the way they did. I don't want you to leave on account of me, but I have to say that you are the most honest person over there, and you defended me by not allowing them to dismiss me the way they did. What grounds did they have other than they didn't like what I had to say? I really don't get it. We're in an age where prejudice is suppose to be a thing of the past, but I don't see it that way. I went there because it's suppose to be rational debate. I think Sam Harris would be horrified. Anyone who read that thread could see that I was the one being bullied, not them. Kudos to you Sadie for being the strong person you are, and being true to yourself!

Originally Posted by Sadie

I don't mean this in a harsh way, Peacegirl, but I was not fighting for you as much as I was fighting against injustice. I am pleased to see that you are reinstated because your suspension was not fair, imo, of course.

Well that's actually what I meant. I didn't see the reason for their suspension at all, and without any explanation.

Originally Posted by Sadie

Thanks for praising me for being "true to myself", but sometimes I think I am simply a contrarian. Also, I am a bit of a misfit on PR because the majority of them are atheists and I am a failed theist-wannabe. I accept, but am puzzled by people who don't want there to be "something more".

Anyway, I've become used to sword-fighting several people at once. Sometimes I just flail away and kick, but I don't give up.

Hmmm....maybe we're a bit alike, Peacegirl.

I think so to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

That was made very clear in the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

While it is true that the photons have to be at the retina there is no necessity that they be there instantly. That is simply a condition that you and Lessans have invented as part of the argument for real-time vision. I can edit your statement like this, "if the object is within optical range, the non-absorbed light is at the retina or we wouldn't be able to see said object...", and it would be correct. The 'instantly' is simply unnecessary and its inclusion makes the statement incorrect.

The 'instantly' is very necessary because it is the antithesis of time. It takes no time for us to see the material world as long as light is present.

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Different, yes. Plausible? Not even a little bit. Plausible and imaginable are not synonymous.

Whatever.

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?

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

What if this "law" is never confirmed valid by science? Given that scientists are universally close minded, mean spirited and dogmatic authoritarians who invariably close ranks against any new ideas that might challenge the existing orthodoxy, this is a very real possibility.

Bad boy, bad boy
Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do
When they won't listen to you?

I have hope that it will be, even if it's a long time from now.

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.

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

It's odd that you should say that. When you came back here, after your brief hiatus, wasn't it because people were still saying stuff in this thread, even though you weren't here? So which is it? Are we going to drop the thread like a hot potato or are we going to keep on bad-mouthing you and Lessans behind your back.

I didn't say people were badmouthing Lessans. I don't know what they were discussing but it didn't seem to have anything to do with the purpose of this thread. It's unfortunate that this conversation has turned into something so different than what was originally intended. One day I'll look back and wonder why I stayed so long.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was made very clear in the book.

In other words, you haven't got a clue.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One day I'll look back and wonder why I stayed so long.

One day we'll all look back and wonder why we stayed so long.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You did say the photons will be on Earth. The retina is on Earth, and you've said there will be photons at that retina on Earth instantly at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited. I asked where they came from, and you said they were previously located at the surface of the Sun. Is there some part of this that you wish to change or retract?

If not, then please answer 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) At 11:52.
c) Between 11:52 and 12:00
d) At 12:00
e) Sometime after 12:00

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Goodbye Spacemonkey. You got nerve to go to the other forum and badmouth me the way you have. I'm done with you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Goodbye Spacemonkey. You got nerve to go to the other forum and badmouth me the way you have. I'm done with you.

What are you talking about? Please quote for me whatever post you are complaining about or retract this charge.

Were you lying to me when you said you would answer my question?

[sadie]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

This is what the theological/philosophical notion of theodicy is meant to address: namely, the justification of "evil" in a world created by (an ostensibly "good") God/deity. Not to open a whole new can of worms, but aren't we assuming an anthropomorphic line of argument for a deity which cannot be reduced to such - in the Christian framework or otherwise?

I'm certainly no Christian, but this is precisely why I think the Book of Job is one of the most significant, intriguing and absolutely profound books of the Bible...it's the source of more discomfiting and troubling aspects of God than good, church-going Christians can shake their comforting rods and staves at!

I, too, appreciate Job, the basic message of which is "I'm God and you're not, so just trust me, you moron."

As far as Christians go, they are as various as atheists. Some are dogmatic, some are ideologues, others are reflective and open-minded. I've never been a Christian, but I enjoy many Christian writers and poets, most notably T.S Eliot and Auden.

Most Christian writers eventually try to tackle the topic of "evil", but, let's face it, when in the presence of acute suffering, all justifications seem like dust in the wind. However, I should also add that most of the misery of the world stems from man's inhumanity, not God's.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was made very clear in the book.

I read it as Lessans using mind slides and projection as an analogy. You seem to be stating that he seriously thought something projected out of the brain through the eyes....is that what you are saying?

If so, ROFL!