A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Can you show us some videos of dogs prancing around and tail wagging when they're given one of their master's socks to smell, or when they're played a recording of their master's voice? Both tests must be done without any other cues, of course.

Ceptimus, if a dog hasn't seen his master in a long time, and suddenly gets a whiff of his odor, I believe there will be recognition. If you don't want to use a sock, use the real person. Dogs recognize smell; they do not recognize photons.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If jews are actually not to blame for the majority of the world's ills, then why are people so threatened by anti-semitism?

Exactly. That's called irrationalism. What is there to actually fear if this knowledge is true? I'm just trying to understand where all the backlash is coming from; or is it just due to my defiance that makes people equally defiant, because they believe I have the nerve to argue with Lone Ranger and others, who know so much more than me?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Why won't you watch them when you're given the links?

More blatant misrepresentation and dishonesty on your part. Many such experiments have been performed, using different methodologies. And you've outright said that you won't read the write-ups.

They aren't. You're being dishonest again.

Good grief! Learn some elementary-school-level physiology! And why not actually read the results of the experiments that have been done?

That is a massive lie, and you know it.

Lessans didn't use scientific methodology, as you yourself repeatedly point out. Therefore, to call what he did "science" is dishonest by definition.

Yes we have! Have you not been paying attention at all?

I call you a liar when you lie.

I told you to give me the links again if you can find them. Thanks.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just because Lessans didn't intend them to be laws or prohibitions does not mean that others will not try to impliment them as such, after 10 years have you not learned that people can misintrepret what he has written? Claims of world peace and no crime can do real harm if people run with them to extreme cases and pass laws that cause harm because of that misunderstanding. I have seen people who have confused reality and fantasy, that happens and when they try to influence others based on that preception of fantasy as reality, there can be real harm to society. Typhoid Mary refused to believe that she carried a deadly disease and infected many people in her ignorance, her fantasy was that she was in good health and could not carry such a disease.

Typhoid Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your ignorance has no bounds. There will be no laws or prohibitions. The only law will be the higher law of man's nature that is not man-made and does not prohibit. If anything, typhoid Mary would never take a chance in spreading a disease under the changed conditions. People will be so honest with each other, there will be no reason for her to be in denial. And she would never take a chance knowing that she may have the disease, and could spread it to others. So you're completely wrong again. Will there ever be a time that you will be right when it comes to this book? I doubt it, because your mind is so set in stone, there's no way I can break through that barrier.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You accept the results that contradict Lessans' theories. If you don't think the results are proof then you should offer some alternative explanation for them.

I don't have to offer an explanation for what's going on because I really don't know. This is not the way Lessans came to the conclusions he did. All that I am responsible for is sharing his conclusions and seeing if there's any merit to them. If there is, then there's a conflict and it's up to scientists not to ignore his claim, but to try to find out if there is anything to it, and if there is, to figure what could be going on with their observations regarding the moons of Jupiter. If they don't want to follow this lead, they don't have to, but eventually truth comes out one way or another. Again, what harm is there to his claim? You're acting like he's building a nuclear bomb.

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

If you don't have any alternative explanation, it looks like you're saying, 'I accept that these results show that I'm wrong, so I'm just going to ignore them.'

No, that's not true. I just think there is merit to Lessans' observations, not because he's my father, but because his observations make sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Fact not in evidence.

Science fiction usually includes at least some minimal scientific elements. Lessans' book more properly belongs in the utopian fantasy genre.

I am really surprised at you Angakuk. You've jumped on this bandwagon with such gusto that it shocks me every time you post. When I gave a very sincere answer to your last post, you couldn't wait to attack me without any real thought to what you were saying. You're just giving knee-jerk reactions like all the rest.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you're so sure it's implausible, why are you hounding me? Just look at me as a fundie and shake your head in disbelief.

Why don't you just answer? All I'm asking is if you still agree with your own previous claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I agree. If the light source is so far away that the light is sufficiently dispersed so that not enough photons come into contact with the retina (or some other type of light sensor) then we will not see the light source.

Since you agree that what we see is the light that is reflected or emitted by the object, and not the object itself, then I suppose that you must also agree that we can only see that light if it is in contact with our retinas. Is that correct.

In the case of the laser and the red spot on the wall, what is the object that we are seeing when we see the red spot on the wall?

You are mixing up light (like David does), which takes time to strike the wall because the laser has just been turned on, and seeing the actual object due to light's presence. These are two different things. If the Sun was just turned on, we wouldn't see the light on the wall either because it hasn't yet arrived. This doesn't contradict efferent vision in the least.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Zero is not "so many times". I've been asking you for days simply to indicate whether or not you still stick by your previous answers, and you've ignored me every time, just as you have here.

In Lessans' newly ignited Sun example, the Sun is big enough and bright enough to be see instantly at 12:00 when it is ignited. There is no warm up time. This is a complete red herring. I've shown you how you face the exact same problem both with and without this 2 second warm-up. In BOTH cases you are still unable to explain where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there.

Let's work through both possibilities once more:-

(1) No warm-up period at all. The Sun is ignited at 12:00 and is instantly big enough and bright enough to be seen. So it is seen at 12:00. So there must be photons at the retina at 12:00, right? So where did they come from? The Sun? Then when where they located at the Sun? You can't answer this question, can you? Because there is no possible answer that will make any kind of sense.

(2) This time there is a 2 second warm-up period. So the Sun is ignited at 12:00 but is only big enough and bright enough to be seen at 12:02. So now there is a 2 second delay between the Sun being ignited and our actually seeing it. So there will be photons at the retina at 12:02, right? Where did they come from? The Sun? Then when were they located at the Sun? At 12:00? Then how did they get from the Sun to the retina which is 90 million miles away in two minutes? You can't answer this question either, can you? Did they travel through the intervening distance, thereby traveling at 4 times the speed of light? Or did they not travel through the intervening distance, thereby having teleported instead?

Go ahead and try to answer the bold questions for each scenario. Can you see how you still face the same problem both with and without a warm-up time? Can you see how this warm-up time is NOT the problem you are facing? The real problem here is that warm-up or no warm-up, you can't explain where the photons at the retina came from or how they got there.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just trying to understand where all the backlash is coming from...

It comes from your willful ignorance, denial of reality, dishonesty, evasion, and weaseling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why don't you just answer? All I'm asking is if you still agree with your own previous claims.

Because you cannot use this reasoning, that's why. I cannot continue to talk to you about efferent vision when we're on parallel roads, and until you understand why we're on parallel roads, we will be on a road to nowhere.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not on trial and I will answer you any way I want. If you had been more polite things may have been different, but I feel the disrespect and I'm not interested in engaging with you.

So when you finally get a chance to show that this isn't a bunch of sexist crap by simply switching the pronouns in an explanation that you wrote you're conveniently not speaking to me again and running off with your tail between your legs? That told me all I need to know about the relative equality of men and women in his brave new world. Women that aren't doormats better not sign on the dotted line.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you cannot use this reasoning, that's why.

Why not?

Am I wrong to think that if light is to be located somewhere then you need to be able to explain where it came from?

Am I wrong to think that if light came from some location then you need to be able to explain when it was located there?

Are these faulty assumptions, Peacegirl? Or are they perfectly reasonable questions that your account needs to address?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot continue to talk to you about efferent vision when we're on parallel roads, and until you understand why we're on parallel roads, we will be on a road to nowhere.

We are on parallel roads because I am investigating the implications of your claims, while you are running away from them. I'm trying to find out where these photons at the retina came from and how they got there on your account, while you're doing your best to ignore and evade the problem.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ceptimus, if a dog hasn't seen his master in a long time, and suddenly gets a whiff of his odor, I believe there will be recognition. If you don't want to use a sock, use the real person. .

You can't use the real person, because there would be visual cues. It must be only something with the master's smell, and the dog must wag his tail, whimper, jump up and down, or otherwise "show recognition" according to your criteria.

Dogs recognize smell; they do not recognize photons

That's what you are being asked to demonstrate, that a dog reacts with what you consider signs of recognition to the master's scent without the person present at all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just trying to understand where all the backlash is coming from; or is it just due to my defiance that makes people equally defiant, because they believe I have the nerve to argue with Lone Ranger and others, who know so much more than me?

It's your blatant dishonesty and weaseling.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly. That's called irrationalism. What is there to actually fear if this knowledge is true? I'm just trying to understand where all the backlash is coming from; or is it just due to my defiance that makes people equally defiant, because they believe I have the nerve to argue with Lone Ranger and others, who know so much more than me?

It was your irrationalism I pointed out. You seem to have managed to miss the point once again. Engage slow clap routine :

As for the "backlash", there is no such thing. There is just a lot of people who are amused by how irrational you are about all this, and who enjoy arguing with you. Some of them are a bit outraged by your dishonesty, as well.

It is like arguing with jehovas witnesses, or fundy born-agains, or flat-earthers. It is funny, because the way they cling to an irrational idea for emotional reasons is certain to make them say things which are contradictory or plain absurd. They end up lying for jesus the way you lie for your dad: they think it is fine to use crooked arguments and dishonest tactics, because they believe it is for a greater causes, a higher truth.

Just look at you: you get cornered in your own BS, and then you need to muddy the waters, throw a hissy fit, declare you are leaving, etc.

This is because your position is inherently irrational. You need those tactics, or else it becomes too obvious that you do not even know what you are talking about where sight is concerned, that your right-of-way rules are absurd, that the author seems to have forgotten to provide the proof he promises... just to name a few of the enormous holes in the book.

If this was not the case, then look at your argument: now you are implying that the fact that people think your ideas are absurd somehow counts as a reason to believe they are correct!

[Vivisectus]

Anyway - we still haven't cleared up how the eyes can work as cameras as well as movie projectors if there is no afferent sight?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are mixing up light (like David does), which takes time to strike the wall because the laser has just been turned on, and seeing the actual object due to light's presence. These are two different things. If the Sun was just turned on, we wouldn't see the light on the wall either because it hasn't yet arrived. This doesn't contradict efferent vision in the least.

Hilarious response! Come on peacegirl, answer Ang.

"In the case of the laser and the red spot on the wall, what is the object that we are seeing when we see the red spot on the wall?"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

So when you finally get a chance to show that this isn't a bunch of sexist crap by simply switching the pronouns in an explanation that you wrote you're conveniently not speaking to me again and running off with your tail between your legs? That told me all I need to know about the relative equality of men and women in his brave new world. Women that aren't doormats better not sign on the dotted line.

You've been falsely judging me and this book the day I came online, so it's no surprise that you would misjudge me and this book now. It doesn't matter if it's a male or female, the principles apply in the same way. It doesn't matter what responsibilities you take on, or what you want to become, so why you are trying to make this book sexist, I don't have a clue. How can women be doormats when this new world is respectful to every single person; blacks, whites, garbage collectors, surgeons, women, men, gays, straights, skinny, fat? Do you see how premature you are in your judgment?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why not?

Am I wrong to think that if light is to be located somewhere then you need to be able to explain where it came from?

Am I wrong to think that if light came from some location then you need to be able to explain when it was located there?

Are these faulty assumptions, Peacegirl? Or are they perfectly reasonable questions that your account needs to address?

We are on parallel roads because I am investigating the implications of your claims, while you are running away from them. I'm trying to find out where these photons at the retina came from and how they got there on your account, while you're doing your best to ignore and evade the problem.

You still don't understand that there is no "where it came from" because the image is not reflected in the light. I am really tired of discussing this, and I need a break.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's your blatant dishonesty and weaseling.

That's how you see me because I am not conceding. I admitted that I don't know what's happening with the moons of Jupiter or any other observation that scientists have used to confirm that the eyes are a sense organ, but Lessans' observations demonstrate otherwise, and I'm sticking with him until the proof of afferent vision smacks me in the face and knocks me for a loop. Just because I'm not willing to agree with people who think they have it all wrapped up, doesn't make me a dishonest person or a weasel.

[Vivisectus]

Actually, not conceding when faced with overwhelming evidence is dishonest. And the evidence against efferent sight is overwhelming. The only way to make it seem otherwise is to use dishonest methods to avoid that evidence.

Because it is not just the moons of jupiter. It is it, and enormous piles of other evidence.

And next to that enormous pile of evidence, you have... the fact your dad said sight is efferent, and nothing else.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's how you see me because I am not conceding. I admitted that I don't know what's happening with the moons of Jupiter or any other observation that scientists have used to confirm that the eyes are a sense organ, but Lessans' observations demonstrate otherwise, and I'm sticking with him until the proof of afferent vision smacks me in the face and knocks me for a loop.

Except nothing will. Bionic eyes; astrophysical observations; the facts that Lessans contradicts Einstein's remarkably confirmed theories; and even more impressively confirmed theories based on relativity; basic physiology; basic neuroscience - you don't understand how any of that can be squared with Lessans. You have a prior - that Lessans is right - despite him providing no evidence for his so called 'observations'; despite him contradicting well known facts with every other sentence; despite him being ignorant of swathes of science. And that prior is so strong that I don't think there is any evidence that will convince you otherwise. Even when faced with ironclad evidence, of experiments repeated thousands of times over hundreds of years, you just shrug and say 'well, I am sure Lessans is right, so there must be some explanation I don't know that explains this'.

You are trapped in this belief. If you are wrong - and like it or not, you know that this is a possibility, however small - you will never find out with this mindset.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It was your irrationalism I pointed out. You seem to have managed to miss the point once again. Engage slow clap routine :

As for the "backlash", there is no such thing. There is just a lot of people who are amused by how irrational you are about all this, and who enjoy arguing with you. Some of them are a bit outraged by your dishonesty, as well.

It is like arguing with jehovas witnesses, or fundy born-agains, or flat-earthers. It is funny, because the way they cling to an irrational idea for emotional reasons is certain to make them say things which are contradictory or plain absurd. They end up lying for jesus the way you lie for your dad: they think it is fine to use crooked arguments and dishonest tactics, because they believe it is for a greater causes, a higher truth.

Just look at you: you get cornered in your own BS, and then you need to muddy the waters, throw a hissy fit, declare you are leaving, etc.

This is because your position is inherently irrational. You need those tactics, or else it becomes too obvious that you do not even know what you are talking about where sight is concerned, that your right-of-way rules are absurd, that the author seems to have forgotten to provide the proof he promises... just to name a few of the enormous holes in the book.

If this was not the case, then look at your argument: now you are implying that the fact that people think your ideas are absurd somehow counts as a reason to believe they are correct!

What if it turns out that you're the fundie Vivisectus? What then? You are so positive he is wrong, and you are doing everything you can to make it appear that way, but it's all a facade. As far as sight goes, the verdict is still out no matter how much you believe this is a proven fact. As far as the right-of-way system, there is no doubt that it prevents arguments. If I would say to my boyfriend "lets go to the movies" and he says, no honey, you go yourself because I'm tired, and I keep badgering him to go with me, not considering his feelings (which he has a right to), who is in the wrong here? I'm sure you will say that he is (just to be obstinate) because he is sacrificing my need for his time, but he is not telling me not to go. I am telling him to do something that he doesn't want to do. He has the right-of-way even though I would love him to come with me. The right-of-way system is based on a mathematical principle and it comes directly from the knowledge that man's will is not free. If you can't even follow that principle, it's no wonder you can't follow this one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, not conceding when faced with overwhelming evidence is dishonest. And the evidence against efferent sight is overwhelming. The only way to make it seem otherwise is to use dishonest methods to avoid that evidence.

Because it is not just the moons of jupiter. It is it, and enormous piles of other evidence.

And next to that enormous pile of evidence, you have... the fact your dad said sight is efferent, and nothing else.

I have my own evidence and it is just as convincing, if not more, than the evidence you have. You're being dishonest.