A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Non-sequitur. This response has nothing at all to do with my post.

It absolute does. Keep trying LadyShea, and maybe you'll come up with something.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

You mean that you've been trying to get someone, anyone to agree with the first two discoveries for 10 years without even an idea of how you would proceed after that or if you would try to proceed at all? These are the kinds of things that make me wonder if you're trolling. No one that is serious about their work does shit like this.

It's possible that she's trolling, but this is the longest troll I've ever seen, with nary a slip of character for years. It's also possible that trolling is what she's doing because she desires discussion about the book, regardless of how people discuss it.

There's definitely some form of mental dysfunction here. Devotion to a book that requires extreme mental gymnastics to keep believing in it probably isn't helping, if it's not part of the cause.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It's possible that she's trolling, but this is the longest troll I've ever seen, with nary a slip of character for years. It's also possible that trolling is what she's doing because she desires discussion about the book, regardless of how people discuss it.

There's definitely some form of mental dysfunction here. Devotion to a book that requires extreme mental gymnastics to keep believing in it probably isn't helping, if it's not part of the cause.

I don't think that her blind devotion to her dad and the book are a troll but I'm not convinced that this ridiculous thing where she flip-flops all over the place and contradicts herself is unconscious or just part of her confusion either. I think that she knows that the vision stuff in the book is incorrect after all of this time and consciously refuses to admit it because she has too much emotionally invested in his being right. I haven't taken a science class since high school (and it was taught by nuns who didn't go to college) and even I understood it the first time that it was explained. This isn't the rocket scientist part and I'm having a hard time believing that someone that can use a computer can't understand it unless they're not telling the truth.

[thedoc]

Hey everyone.
We're comeing up on page 1111 and I was thinking we should have a party and let the book rest. You can post favorite music, drink and food recipes, fun stuff to look at, anything that seems like a party. Who's up for a party and taking a break from the book and understanding Peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, that's what the standard model of light states. We can't see all stars, because some are too far away for their light to reach us. Which is exactly what Lessans also said.

Yes, this is thoroughly explained in the standard model of optics.

It should have nothing at all to do with efferent vision though. Why do things look smaller when they are further away in the efferent account? Why do you keep saying distance isn't a factor when it absolutely is a factor?

Distance isn't a factor because we're not waiting for light to arrive. We see instantly if the requirements are met. That doesn't mean there isn't distance between the object and the eye, which is why we see some objects and not others.

Light is emitted at different points in time depending on how old a star is, but this is not as important as how large and bright a star is, in order for us to see it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Large enough and bright enough and close enough for the light they emit to reach the light detector. This is standard optics.

That's true. The only difference is that science says we can see the object without the object.

Olber's paradox says that we don't see all stars at once because some are from so long ago that the light hasn't reached us yet.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It states that some are too far away for the light to have reached us*, which Lessans agreed with. That is standard optics. Why do you keep saying distance doesn't matter in the efferent model?

The only difference is that standard optics says that eventually the light will reach us, and when it does we'll be able to see an object (matter) that is no longer here. You should know that by now.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

*Of course distance involves time too, so the further away they are the older they are. That's the Theory of Relativity in action.

The farther away something is does not necessarily mean it's older. But it will be smaller in size relative to other objects.

There are a few more, but none of these theories are related to the efferent model.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You just said it relates to the efferent model due to distance because the light can't reach us. Lessans stated it too.

That's true. If we're not in optical range because the light has diminished to the point that no photons are at the film/retina, we won't be able to see the object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

When we see something, do we see the object itself or do we see the light reflected off of or emitted by the object?

When we see the moon on the backdrop of a pinhole camera, we're seeing an image of the moon, but the moon is present. When we see light from a laser, we see the light that is emitted but the laser is present. If the moon is turned off, there will be no image on the backdrop. If the laser is turned off, we will see no red spot on the wall.

[Vivisectus]

You have a responsibility to those children Vivisectus. You are creating a situation where the right-of-way doesn't apply because in actuality you don't have the right-of-way to bring children into the world who cannot fend for themselves, and then expect them to feed and cloth themselves. You are trying to find a flaw which doesn't exist.

The right-of-way rule is there to show us if it is fair to give a desire right-of-way over another. You are now saying that it does not apply if a person can be considered to have assumed a certain amount of responsibility, or when people are dependent on that person for the fulfillment of important desires. By the way, these qualifications are not in the book, nor have you ever mentioned them before.

But even if we accept them, this merely shifts the problem: we could also consider that a man has no business marrying a woman he does not intend to cuddle should she want to be emotionally supported in that way. By engaging in marriage, that man can resonably be considered to have assumed some responsibility for that womans happiness.

We would have to further qualify our rule, and say that it applies only when the desire in question is not some sort of dependency, where the person can simply satisfy that desire elsewhere or in a different way.

We would have to qualify that further again and say that the desire must be one that is of great importance, to the degree that not satifying it would constitute a serious detriment of the quality of life of that person.

That is very true, although in cases where it's murky, there will be people hired to carefully analyze what constitutes a hurt in specific situations. It is a hurt to leave a child without food or clothes and shirk your responsibility to care for them. You do not have the right-of-way to hurt them, but you can if you want to. The irony is that you could never hurt them by leaving them and doing your own thing without a thought to their well-being.

You seem to have flip-flopped all over yourself again. You really must learn not to do that if you want to be taken seriously in polite society. Here, take this napkin and clean yourself up a bit while I try to explain.

According to your right-of-way rule, my desire definitely gets right of way over that of the kids: However, we have established that the rule does not apply if the relationship is such that the person who would normally not get right of way is dependent on the other for the fulfillment of that desire, and if the desire is of such importance that being deprived of it's fulfillment constitutes a serious decrease in that person's quality of life.

Also, that there now apparently a hurt-police in your utopia.

It's a no brainer in most situations what is and what is not a hurt, but as I noted just now, in situations where it is unclear, there will be people that will be trained to specifically figure this out. The fact that certain situations may be unclear are probably the kind of situations that would not create the kind of hurt you would hear on the evening news. These would be small issues in comparison to the more serious ones. Nevertheless, science would determine what is a hurt what isn't based on the standard of what a hurt actually is. There are some hurts that are not true hurts, but imaginary hurts.

Wonderful! But I rather thought the right-of-way system was there to determine what consitutes a hurt and what does not? Would you care to have a stab at giving a clear definition of what consitutes a hurt? Since it is such a no-brainer, it should pose no significant challenge.

Also, you would have to define a standard for the kind of matter that is minor enough for the rule to apply to it.

This isn't really a rule. You can do whatever you want and you would not be blamed for going fishing. But this is a nutty example because you, yourself, would want to see your baby born. Not only that, even if you were not the father, wanting to make your wife happy in a situation like this, would prevent you from choosing to go fishing which would not be showing your love at all. This lack of interest or care for your wife under duress would justify her lack of interest in you, and her desire to find someone who does love her. If you want your wife to love you, you have to show love for her, and you would not be in an extreme situation like this. This does not compare to who gets the right-of-way when one is telling the other to do something that the other could have done for himself had he remembered.

I notice that everytime I point out the very obvious problems with what you definitely called the right-of-way rule, it sort of stops being a rule at all. Which is odd, because you yourself presented it as a fool-proof marriage-saving "rule of the road".

What I find even stranger is that if you love your wife and want to show your love to her, you should give her a cuddle even if you are not particularly in the mood to do so. I would consider a person who does not have the generosity of spirit to do so - at least every once in a while! - to not be sufficiently invested in his wife's happiness... but this means that the right-of-way rule is useless for this particular example too!

But somehow that argument only seems to apply to things that confirm what you want to believe, which is exactly what you are going ot demonstrate next.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I rather think the duh is on you. The "special circumstances" do not refer to the events in the examples. Let me lead you through it bit by bit:

No, it doesn't work that way. You are taking the human element out of it, which obviously does take into consideration the situation at hand. In the situation with the wife having a baby, she is asking a favor of her husband to be there with her, which she cannot do for herself

That is not true: you could not have cuddled yourself, and yet your husbands desire to be somewhere else got right of way. So it is not the ability to do something for yourself which decides if a desire constitutes an infrigement.

. You can call it a favor if you want to, although it wouldn't be a favor if he wants to see his own child being born. Considering that in the new world no one would take advantage of the other, he would want to be there for her in a situation like this. People will do everything they can to show their love for each other, for their own security that their spouse won't have a justification to look elsewhere. And what kind of love would it be showing her if he chose to go fishing on such a special occasion?

Indeed: in a world where there is absolutely no need for the right-of-way rule, the right-of-way rule would work perfectly.

That's true. That is the human element that is dependent on the circumstance; the asking of a favor when you cannot do something for yourself or when you need moral support. Of course in situations like these each partner would desire helping the other because no advantage is being taken. You are reducing this to an absurdity. That doesn't mean this principle doesn't work.

Ah it is a principle again now? Do stop flipflopping in public dear: there is nothing wrong with it, in private, and I am sure the rumours that it makes you go blind are completely false, but no-one likes to look at it.

So now we have yet another qualification: you must also make sure that no advantage is being taken. So what standard are we to use to determine when the right-of-way rule, which is a principle we can apply to see which desire should get right of way, does not involve any advantage-taking?

In the new world the husband gets right-of-way to do anything he wants. What is most important here, is will he want to? The less she makes demands on him in situations where she can do certain things for herself without imposing on him unnecessarily, the more he will respond when a situation arises that calls for a loving response.

Wow there is a lot wrong with that paragraph. Mrs Sectus commented that women's shelters all over the world are full of women who say things like that.

You seem to be implying that if a husband is emotionally distant when it is clearly a cruel and selfish thing to do, then that is caused by his wife's faillure in handling him properly? Good god you can be such a doormat at times.

In any case, once again the conclusion is: yes, the rule says the husband can do things which are clearly wrong, but the rule is to be applied only in circumstances in which he will not want to.

It will because everyone knows there are differences between telling someone to bring you the newspaper because you forgot it, when he is in the middle of doing something and doesn't feel like bringing it up when you could have done this for yourself (and is taking advantage), and asking your spouse to be at the birth of his child, or asking to be cuddled because you have lost someone dear to you.

Then we need to further qualify the rule: it is only to be applied when it is already very clear that the result is reasonable. Only in such circumstances can the rule to determine when it is reasonable to let one desire take precedence over another, be used to determine when it is reasonable to gice one desire precedence over another.

No Vivisectus. Efferent sight does not require the brain to interpret an image afferently when there's no image in the light if the object is not present. It's amazing how you are trying to discredit these credible claims in the weirdest way possible. It doesn't fly.

But you have just confirmed that it DOES work that way, yourself.

And actually, efferent sight does require afferent sight to happen first, and the book acknowledges this: the eyes work like cameras AND like movie projectors, remember? And you yourself are unable to explain how the brain know to project the correct word-slide without the information about what is out there appearing in the brain first.

[Vivisectus]

In the new world the husband gets right-of-way to do anything he wants. What is most important here, is will he want to? The less she makes demands on him in situations where she can do certain things for herself without imposing on him unnecessarily, the more he will respond when a situation arises that calls for a loving response.

This paragraph really makes me sad, by the way.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it disproves Lessans' claims, then go your merry way Lone. Why would you stay at some weird thread that is put out by some crackpot? Just go our merry way, and teach what you have learned. No one is worse for the wear.

I am a scientist and an educator. I have an obligation and a duty to confront and expose ignorance and pseudoscience. And yes, ignorance and pseudoscience can be very damaging -- look at all the damage being done by vaccine deniers, global warming "skeptics," creationists, etc., etc.


The real question is: Why do you persist, given that Lessans' claims regarding sight have been disproved by your own criteria?

It's dishonest at best to persist in making demonstrably-false claims.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just blew it Maturin. Ask me straight, or don't ask. I am not into playing games with you or anyone else. I guess it's your training that makes you so cynical.

One!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it means that, and the only way that can happen is the very opposite of what they think happens.

What the hell are you talking about Maturin? You're really in a world of your own which has been created to dismiss anything I have to say. That's why I take nothing you say seriously, because you have an agenda.

Two!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it means in actual physical contact. This is not magic, teleportation, or seeing faster than the speed of light.

Three! Now THAT'S the stuff, THREE responses to the exact same post!

Hysterical butthurt comes in Original Recipe and Extra Crispy. That there is most certainly Extra Crispy. Just when you think the entertainment value of this thread is all played out, ...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The right-of-way rule is there to show us if it is fair to give a desire right-of-way over another. You are now saying that it does not apply if a person can be considered to have assumed a certain amount of responsibility, or when people are dependent on that person for the fulfillment of important desires. By the way, these qualifications are not in the book, nor have you ever mentioned them before.

That's because you haven't read the book. I'm not spoonfeeding this to you anymore.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But even if we accept them, this merely shifts the problem: we could also consider that a man has no business marrying a woman he does not intend to cuddle should she want to be emotionally supported in that way. By engaging in marriage, that man can resonably be considered to have assumed some responsibility for that womans happiness.

Vivisectus, you are, once again, taking this simple but important guideline to the absurd. I am not interested in continuing this conversation. If you love someone and want to hold onto their love, you want to show, by your actions, not your words, that you care about them. That's what a relationship is, wanting to satisfy the needs of your spouse, especially if their needs can't be met without your participation. But that isn't even what this principle is referring to. This principle is referring to things you can do for yourself but fail to because it's easier to get someone else to do it for you. It's called laziness. What this principle does is forces people to be considerate of each other. There is nothing not to like about this principle; the only thing you will have to give up is your selfishness. You can try to justify being selfish by asking favors that you could easily do for yourself, but this is not conducive to a happy marriage. Why? Because it does not show consideration for the other who would fulfill your request reluctantly (because they have to now sacrifice what they are doing in order to satisfy you [do you see the confusion over who is selfish?]) Many marriages fail due to the build up of resentment, but hey, do what you want, ask favors of your partner all you want, and I wish you the best of luck.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This paragraph really makes me sad, by the way.

I have no idea why. I'm sure you've thought up some cockamanie reason.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the new world the husband gets right-of-way to do anything he wants. What is most important here, is will he want to? The less she makes demands on him in situations where she can do certain things for herself without imposing on him unnecessarily, the more he will respond when a situation arises that calls for a loving response.

Peacegirl, I realize that I'm taking this out of context because you were talking about a husband at the time but in principle do you have any problem with the following statement?

Originally Posted by me

In the new world the wife gets right-of-way to do anything she wants. What is most important here, is will she want to? The less he makes demands on her in situations where he can do certain things for himself without imposing on her unnecessarily, the more she will respond when a situation arises that calls for a loving response.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you haven't read the book. I'm not spoonfeeding this to you anymore.

Awww, already you feel the need to simply avoid what you cannot deal with. Soon you will pretend it never happened. Amazing how your undeniable truth requires so much dishonesty to maintain!

Vivisectus, you are, once again, taking this simple but important guideline to the absurd. I am not interested in continuing this conversation. If you love someone and want to hold onto their love, you want to show, by your actions, not your words, that you care about them. That's what a relationship is, wanting to satisfy the needs of your spouse, especially if their needs can't be met without your participation. But that isn't even what this principle is referring to. This principle is referring to things you can do for yourself but fail to because it's easier to get someone else to do it for you. It's called laziness. What this principle does is forces people to be considerate of each other. There is nothing not to like about this principle; the only thing you will have to give up is your selfishness. You can try to justify being selfish by asking favors that you could easily do for yourself, but this is not conducive to a happy marriage. Why? Because it does not show consideration for the other who would fulfill your request reluctantly (because they have to now sacrifice what they are doing in order to satisfy you [do you see the confusion over who is selfish?]) Many marriages fail due to the build up of resentment, but hey, do what you want, ask favors of your partner all you want, and I wish you the best of luck.

Ah, unsupported claims! Your favorite!

I have already pointed out that this is simply not true: you use the rule to determine that it is fine for your husband not to cuddle you, because it would require him to do something he does not want to do.

Unless you want to make the point that you could just cuddle yourself?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I am a scientist and an educator. I have an obligation and a duty to confront and expose ignorance and pseudoscience. And yes, ignorance and pseudoscience can be very damaging -- look at all the damage being done by vaccine deniers, global warming "skeptics," creationists, etc., etc.


The real question is: Why do you persist, given that Lessans' claims regarding sight have been disproved by your own criteria?

It's dishonest at best to persist in making demonstrably-false claims.

Because I don't believe it's been proven that the brain interprets images from light, and that without the object, the light still brings the pattern of a physical event long after the event is gone. I am persisting and will continue to do so. I am not doing anything that is damaging to anyone. I could say the same thing about you because you are making every effort to prevent this discovery from coming to light by stating that this is a false claim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you haven't read the book. I'm not spoonfeeding this to you anymore.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Awww, already you feel the need to simply avoid what you cannot deal with. Soon you will pretend it never happened. Amazing how your undeniable truth requires so much dishonesty to maintain!

No, you just want your own way, and you don't like being in the wrong. As noted earlier, you are determined to prove Lessans wrong, which makes it impossible for you to be objective.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But even if we accept them, this merely shifts the problem: we could also consider that a man has no business marrying a woman he does not intend to cuddle should she want to be emotionally supported in that way. By engaging in marriage, that man can resonably be considered to have assumed some responsibility for that womans happiness.

Vivisectus, you are, once again, taking this simple but important guideline to the absurd. I am not interested in continuing this conversation. If you love someone and want to hold onto their love, you want to show, by your actions, not your words, that you care about them. That's what a relationship is, wanting to satisfy the needs of your spouse, especially if their needs can't be met without your participation. But that isn't even what this principle is referring to. This principle is referring to things you can do for yourself but fail to because it's easier to get someone else to do it for you. It's called laziness. What this principle does is forces people to be considerate of each other. There is nothing not to like about this principle; the only thing you will have to give up is your selfishness. You can try to justify being selfish by asking favors that you could easily do for yourself, but this is not conducive to a happy marriage. Why? Because it does not show consideration for the other who would fulfill your request reluctantly (because they have to now sacrifice what they are doing in order to satisfy you [do you see the confusion over who is selfish?]) Many marriages fail due to the build up of resentment, but hey, do what you want, ask favors of your partner all you want, and I wish you the best of luck.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah, unsupported claims! Your favorite!

I have already pointed out that this is simply not true: you use the rule to determine that it is fine for your husband not to cuddle you, because it would require him to do something he does not want to do.

Unless you want to make the point that you could just cuddle yourself?

He has the right-of-way, but knowing that she loves to cuddle after sex would make him want to please her, especially knowing that this isn't something she can do for herself, and also knowing that even if he wanted to go to sleep because he was tired, she wouldn't blame him and make him feel guilty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Peacegirl, I realize that I'm taking this out of context because you were talking about a husband at the time but in principle do you have any problem with the following statement?

If a woman knows that her husband is not going to ask her to fulfill unnecessary favors (favors that he can do for himself), it creates a desire in the woman (this is human nature) to want to help him by asking if there is anything she can do for him, even if she has to go out of her way on some occasions. In the new world you would hear this, "Honey, is there anything you would like me to bring to you before I come upstairs?" Or, "Honey, are you thirsty, I don't mind bringing you that lemonade you enjoy?" That is much nicer than having him yell down to you to bring something to him when you're in the middle of doing something, which is a euphemistic way of telling you that you better had, or else get blamed for not fulfilling your duty as a wife. This constant imposition has caused serious riffs in relationships. Why wouldn't a husband or wife want to do what they are capable of doing for themselves, when they know that the less they impose on the other, the less friction there will be, which would be the fault of the one making the demand?

[Vivisectus]

He has the right-of-way, but knowing that she loves to cuddle after sex would make him want to please her, especially knowing that this isn't something she can do for herself, and also knowing that even if he wanted to go to sleep because he was tired, she wouldn't blame him and make him feel guilty.

So your point is that the rule works in circumstances where it is not required?

I do love Lessanese logic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So your point is that the rule works in circumstances where it is not required?

I do love Lessanese logic.

It is a guideline and it works.

[Spacemonkey]

Hey, Peacegirl! Do you stand by your previous answers to me or not?

Why are you evading this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hey, Peacegirl! Do you stand by your previous answers to me or not?

Why are you evading this?

I told you I'm not talking about traveling photons anymore. There is no way we are going to meet on any common ground, so it's no use talking. You can interpret this to mean that I was unable to defend this claim, if that's what you desire.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I don't believe it's been proven that the brain interprets images from light, and that without the object, the light still brings the pattern of a physical event long after the event is gone. I am persisting and will continue to do so. I am not doing anything that is damaging to anyone. I could say the same thing about you because you are making every effort to prevent this discovery from coming to light by stating that this is a false claim.

You are the one who claimed that a functioning bionic eye would disprove Lessans' claims. Such devices exist.


You are a liar and a hypocrite.

I will admit that you are personally harmless, since no sane person could accept your claims. But your attitude -- that what you want to be true is far more important than mere facts, evidence, or logic -- is very, very dangerous indeed.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I'm not talking about traveling photons anymore.

I was asking you about the photons you say will be at the retina in Lessans' example. They are a part of your account, aren't they? And it's up to you whether or not they travel. Why won't you talk about them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way we are going to meet on any common ground, so it's no use talking.

I've been doing exactly what you've told us to do - starting with Lessans' claims and working backwards to see how they might be true. Why won't you do this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can interpret this to mean that I was unable to defend this claim, if that's what you desire.

So you're openly admitting that you can't defend Lessans' claims about his newly ignited Sun scenario? Then why do you keep claiming he was right if you know his claims are indefensible?

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, you said the light from the newly ignited Sun would be at the retina at 12:02 and was located at the Sun at 12:00. Was this correct or incorrect?

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the new world the husband gets right-of-way to do anything he wants. What is most important here, is will he want to? The less she makes demands on him in situations where she can do certain things for herself without imposing on him unnecessarily, the more he will respond when a situation arises that calls for a loving response.

Peacegirl, I realize that I'm taking this out of context because you were talking about a husband at the time but in principle do you have any problem with the following statement?

Originally Posted by me

In the new world the wife gets right-of-way to do anything she wants. What is most important here, is will she want to? The less he makes demands on her in situations where he can do certain things for himself without imposing on her unnecessarily, the more she will respond when a situation arises that calls for a loving response.

Thanks for that long answer last time but I was really looking for a simple one-word answer. Are both of those statements above equally valid? Please just answer with one word - "yes" or "no".