A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Oh boy, you got her now. She can't wiggle her way out of this one. No sir! This question will make her sane.

What you seem to be failing to realize, is that, 'according to Peacegirl', there are hundreds and hundreds of lurkers reading this thread and so it is very important to present an effective argument for the benifit of those multitudes of lurkers who are avidly reading this thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Usually people who suffer from severe schizophrenia do not have intellectual integrity. It is rather crazy, in and of itself, to expect them to have any. Especially when they have been flaunting their lack for over two years.

Is it any more sane to be railing at the insane, or is that another sign of insanity, if so, welcome to the club. And don't try to pretend that you are on the outside analysing those on the inside, that's BS. We're all in this together.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Is it any more sane to be railing at the insane, or is that another sign of insanity, if so, welcome to the club. And don't try to pretend that you are on the outside analysing those on the inside, that's BS. We're all in this together.

Are you saying you are insane?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What you seem to be failing to realize, is that, 'according to Peacegirl', there are hundreds and hundreds of lurkers reading this thread and so it is very important to present an effective argument for the benifit of those multitudes of lurkers who are avidly reading this thread.

I see. You are insane.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

That is what you think it will be like in Lessanatopia. You have no evidence to support that belief. By the very nature of the claim, since it is a claim about some future hypothetical condition, there can be no evidence for it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to offer an explanation for what's going on because I really don't know.

Actually, you do if you want people to take Lessans' claims seriously. I presume that you do want people to take those claims seriously, don't you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, and like I said, I don't have to explain the contradicting evidence.

Actually, you do if you want people to take Lessans' claims seriously. I presume that you do want people to take those claims seriously, don't you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have my own evidence and it is just as convincing, if not more, than the evidence you have.

Then show us the evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All that I am responsible for is sharing his conclusions and seeing if there's any merit to them.

The problem here for you is that you are simply not qualified to evaluate the merits of Lessans' conclusions. I am not talking about academic degrees, or anything like that. I am talking about your very basic lack of knowledge about any of the scientific disciplines that relate to Lessans' claims. When it comes to evaluating the merits of Lessans' claims you are operating in what amounts to an information vacuum.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I am not riding any bandwagon. I calls em as I see em. I have ridiculed you when I felt like doing so and I have asked you serious and pertinent questions when I felt like doing so. I will continue to do so as long as I choose to engage you. What I have not done is call you names. A courtesy on my part that you do not appear to appreciate. I never promised to treat you with kid gloves and

I never promised you a rose garden

.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are seeing the light coming from the laser. The object is the laser that is emitting the light.

When we see the red spot on the wall we are not seeing the laser. The laser is the device that is projecting the light onto the wall. The laser itself is not even in our field of view. All we see is the wall and the red spot. What are we seeing when we see the red spot?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, in this account distance is not what counts. It is the fact that the object is large enough to be seen.

If the object was further away it would appear to be smaller. If it was far enough away it would not be seen at all. Therefore, distance is a factor. Remember, the object has to be bright enough, large enough and near enough to be seen. Apparent size is a function of distance and you are simply ignoring the distance factor.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has actually answered the question as to why this claim is causing so much anger. Isn't it because people are offended that he wasn't a scientist, and therefore who him gives the right to make this claim when the "facts" tell a different story?

I have seen no evidence that anyone is angry about Lessans' claims regarding sight. If you have such evidence please present it. It does appear that some of the participants in this discussion are angry at you, because they find your behavior offensive. It also appears to be the case that you return that anger because you find their behavior offensive. It is what it is and it has little, if anything, to do with Lessans' actual claims. It also appears to be the case that some of the participants in this discussion are offended by Lessans, but not because he wasn't a scientist or because they think he was speaking out of turn. Rather, they are offended by his patronizing attitude and his effrontery in making pronouncements on scientific subjects about which he was abysmally ignorant and then compounding that offense by declining to back up those pronouncements with anything that even approximates evidence.

Personally, I am neither offended nor angry. I am, however, truly amazed at the longevity of this thread, at your dogged persistence in the face of ovewhelming evidence and I am enormously entertained by the whole thing. Also, I am profoundly grateful to you, peacegirl, for bringing this show to my neighborhood.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has actually answered the question as to why this claim is causing so much anger.

You are lying again. You are a loathsome little liar. THAT is why people get angry -- at the sheer shameless effrontery of your serial lying. We HAVE explained the source of the anger that you arouse -- that you are a loathsome, lying weasel who repeatedly fails to answer questions put to you, just as soon as you see that honestly answering the questions means you must concede that Lessans was wrong. You know his claims were wrong, after ten years of instruction by people much smarter than either you or him. But you continue to lie.

Isn't it because people are offended that he wasn't a scientist, and therefore who him gives the right to make this claim when the "facts" tell a different story?

No. It's that the facts (without your dishonest scare quotes) DO tell a different story. As you well know.

Or is it that people like the idea that we are seeing the past?

Why would anyone "like" the fact that we see objects as they were in the past? What possible difference could it make?

In any event, this sort of claim by you is another example of projecting your own faults onto others. People here understand that facts are facts, whether we like the facts or not. You, OTOH, reason like this: I want Lessans to be right, therefore he's right because that makes me feel good. Needless to say, this is a logically fallacious argument, but I gather you understand as little of logic and philosophy in general as you do of anything else.

It certainly doesn't change GPS systems, and it wouldn't cause the world to burn up, as people have speculated.

And there you go, LYING again. The GPS device works ONLY because it takes into account relativity, and relativity rules out real-time seeing. They delay in seeing is a foundation of relativity theory!

And, yes, the reason the sky is not entirely white is because of the finite velocity of light coupled with the expansion of the universe. If we saw everything in real time, our line of sight would always intersect with a star and the surface of the earth would be as hot as the sun.

Liar.

[The Lone Ranger]

I've mentioned it before, but it bears repeating: I'd practically kill for the ability to see in real time. I imagine that pretty-much any astronomer alive would agree. The problem is that every single piece of evidence indicates that we don't.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I agree that light is at the retina.

So photons are at the retina...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no reflected light in this account, therefore there is no traveling photon.

...but they aren't traveling photons that traveled to get there...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that light travels. Those photons travel...

...but now they are traveling photons again!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no image that is reflected in the light.

Strawman takes another pummeling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...when you're talking about non-absorbed photons (images or patterns)...

We're not talking about non-absorbed photons, for his Sun example involves only light emission, and not reflection. And images or patterns are not photons. These words are not synonyms.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-absorbed photons will be instantly at the film/retina because the object is within our field of view...

Where did they come from, and how do they get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that no one can see how an object that absorbs photons doesn't reflect the non-absorbed photons. That appears logical, but I don't believe it's correct.

You just agreed only a few pages ago that it was correct. You keep claiming to be disputing this, but whenever pressed you end up agreeing with it again and saying that you were disputing something else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They didn't get there, they are already there.

Already being there doesn't mean they didn't previously have to get there. When you open your fridge door, lo and behold, the food is already there (and doesn't have to sneak in after you open the door). But that food still had to get there previously by you going shopping and then returning to stock the fridge.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you see the object, the photons are instantly at the retina. Remember, you have to work this backwards...

I'm trying to do just that, but you keep refusing to do so. The photons are at the retina. Great, let's work backwards. Where were they 5 seconds before?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not weaseling away from explaining why light is at the retina.

Wrong word, and wrong question. We're not asking you why. We're asking you HOW the light gets to be at the retina. Where did it come from, and how did it get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think I'm being contradictory, and am trying to weasel my way out of a claim that is implausible in your eyes, I'm very sorry, but that's not what I'm doing.

It's exactly what you're doing, and you've been doing it for years.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has actually answered the question as to why this claim is causing so much anger.

Because it isn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At this point though I'm tired of discussing the eyes because it's exhausting to repeat the same thing over and over and get nowhere.

Then take a break and come back when you're ready to actually answer questions instead of just weaseling and repeating your claims.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We're talking about the light at the retina. What do you mean there is no "where it came from"? I thought you said it came from the Sun? Was that wrong? Are you now saying this light didn't come from anywhere, and instead just came into existence at the retina? Is that what you are saying? Or are you just making up whatever crap you have to in order to evade the problem, without knowing what you are saying?

Who said anything about images being reflected in the light? Was that part of the problem I laid out for you? Or was the problem purely about where the light at the retina came from and how it got there?

It must be very tiring work, constantly not answering questions. This is just another weaseling tactic. Whenever faced with the impossibility of efferent vision and your own inability to actually address the problems with it, you just start begging for a break. You've had breaks. Many of them. Yet you never come back willing to address the problem I've been asking you about. You weasel when refreshed just as much as when you are tired.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That could be done, but I think a better experiment is for there to be a line up and to see if the dog will go toward his master.

You want dogs to "show recognition" when presented with an inanimate object, a photograph, to demonstrate they can visually recognizes faces. We want the same test done for smell. It must be an inanimate object the dog "shows recognition" to by jumping up and down, whining, or whatever other behavior you claim shows recognition.

I do not believe a dog will react to any inanimate object the same as they would the actual person. Although I believe they would recognize their master's smell, I don't think they would whine or jump up and down at a sock. I think they absolutely know the difference between inanimate objects and real people, regardless if that object is a photograph or a piece of clothing.

Remember, the criteria for showing recognition are yours, I want you to apply the same standards to a test of recognition with the sense of smell.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I agree that light is at the retina. If you're looking at the object the light is already there. There is no reflected light in this account, therefore there is no traveling photon. I know this is what you and Spacemonkey don't understand, but this is the foundation of his claim. There is no image that is reflected in the light. It is there because we see it. Unless you can grasp why this is plausible, I have nothing more to say.

I told you that light travels. Those photons travel and are wherever they are on their journey from point A to point B, but when you're talking about non-absorbed photons (images or patterns), these patterns do not bounce and travel. They are there to be seen as long as the object is large enough and bright enough. The non-absorbed photons will be instantly at the film/retina because the object is within our field of view, but we would never get an image of Columbus discovering America because the light is not traveling through space/time with that pattern.

Yes, but that is not what is going to give you an understanding of why the mirror image of the object is at the eye if the object is within our optical range. Remember, in this account distance is not what counts. It is the fact that the object is large enough to be seen.

I've been trying to address it, but I don't think anything I say is going to matter because you keep talking about traveling photons when this account clearly states the the object does not reflect images (or patterns). So how are we going to resolve this? I understand that no one can see how an object that absorbs photons doesn't reflect the non-absorbed photons. That appears logical, but I don't believe it's correct.

They didn't get there, they are already there. There is no traversing of distance when the brain is looking outward, using the eyes as a window to the external world. If you see the object, the photons are instantly at the retina. Remember, you have to work this backwards in order to understand why seeing the object means the light is already there; it doesn't travel to get there. In other words, there is no traveling blue light before red light which would mean there is always going to be a delay depending on which light is in line to strike first; yet light energy is in constant motion.

That is because you don't understand why looking out at the external world changes the way light is used in terms of what it is that we see. It does not change the properties of light.

I am not weaseling away from explaining why light is at the retina. If you put everything that he has explained together, maybe you will eventually see why distance is not a factor, and why the image of the object (e.g. the non-absorbed photons) does not get reflected or travel through space/time in the efferent account, even though light travels. In the afferent account, yes, that is what would have to take place. If you think I'm being contradictory, and am trying to weasel my way out of a claim that is implausible in your eyes, I'm very sorry, but that's not what I'm doing. If that is your goal, to show me what a fundie I am, it's a lost cause because, although I have total faith in my father, I also see the soundness of his observations. No one has actually answered the question as to why this claim is causing so much anger. Isn't it because people are offended that he wasn't a scientist, and therefore who him gives the right to make this claim when the "facts" tell a different story? Or is it that people like the idea that we are seeing the past? It certainly doesn't change GPS systems, and it wouldn't cause the world to burn up, as people have speculated. What if this knowledge changes our relationship to the external world in a positive way? Are you going to just dismiss this possibility because you are so sure you're right? Or are you going to give him a chance?

Whatever you do is your prerogative. At this point though I'm tired of discussing the eyes because it's exhausting to repeat the same thing over and over and get nowhere. Instead of people considering that his claim may have merit, they are actually getting more and more incensed, and it's slowly building like a pressure cooker ready to explode. That's when the gang up starts. Therefore, it's a dead end discussion that will just give everyone more fodder to use for their daily fix of entertainment [at my expense].

You mixed up Spacemonkey and me in the quote tags. I fixed them above

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Are you saying you are insane?

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I see. You are insane.

Sanity is much over-rated.

[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.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What then? Well, if any decent evidence would turn up, I would change my mind. Simple as that.

Maybe this isn't good evidence to you, but there IS evidence.

As far as sight goes, the verdict is still out no matter how much you believe this is a proven fact.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

At the moment, there is a vast preponderance of evidence that points to your ideas being complete twaddle. It is so strong and comes from so many different areas that it is hard to imagine the circumstances in which all those things could be observed and your idea be correct at the same time. It would have to involve some weird galaxy-wide conspiracy by vastly powerful supernatural beings or something. It literally boggles the mind to even try to reconcile your ideas with what we know to be true. I don't think it can be done.

How would it involve some weird galaxy-wide conspiracy or supernatural beings? What the hell are you talking about? The properties of light remain the same, the world remains the same, galaxies remain the same, stars remain the same. Everything remains the same except for seeing in real time because of how the eyes function.

As far as the right-of-way system, there is no doubt that it prevents arguments.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please to provide some support for that claim. As we have alsready seen, both in small-scale examples as in extreme ones, it leads to absurdities unless you qualify your rule so heavily as to make it completely useless.

Nope, it's because you're not seeing the full picture. You are taking snippets out of this system and turning it into what it's not. You are forgetting that in marriage, we want to please the other if we want our marriage to last, which means we will go out of our way to help our partner when they ask for it, but, in turn, our partner would never want us to make that sacrifice just for us, if it meant that it was a strain, or something the other partner really didn't want to do but would do to make us happy.

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

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oooo there's a boyfriend in the picture now? Good on you! DO NOT SHOW HIM THE BOOK.

If you keep this sarcasm up, don't expect me to answer your posts.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, your rule if quite obviously nonsense. Please to explain the math behind this principle: I am all agog to follow your calculations.

As for your example: it depends on the circumstances who is wrong.

No, this is very clear cut.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If he has stood you up for 6 movie visits in a row

Stood me up? This would never happen in the new world so your beginning premise is already down the drain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

and you have pointed out this is a big thing for you, then his refusal to go because he is a bit tired is wrong - and obviously so. If this is a random thing with no real history to it, then he is fully in the right.

He would go out of his way to satisfy her, even if he was tired, but she, knowing this, would never want to take advantage if this was not something he enjoyed doing. Again, you are making up hypothetical situations that would never occur. But because you want him to be wrong in the worst way, you actually think you've outwitted him. You have done no such thing. This system works, and there's nothing you can do to change that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your right-of-way rule is once again pretty useless for determining what is OK and what is not, and it is trivially easy to come up with examples where it gets it rather hillariously wrong.

That's because you haven't analyzed it correctly. It's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So: please explain to me if it is wrong for your boyfriend to refuse to go to the movies when you have waited for months to go and see it, you bought tickets months in advance, you have reminded him weekly of the upcoming event which you made clear was very important to you and which he agreed to go to, and for which you have hired a stretch limo complete with strawberries and champagne... because he is a bit tired.

He would never disappoint her if they had made plans in advance. You are losing it Vivisectus. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

According to your rule, it is wrong of you to even feel let down.

It's not a matter of being wrong or right. It's a matter of wanting to please your partner, but if something comes up such as an illness, the other partner would understand. Disappointment happens, but disregard for the other's feeling will not happen.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

When youa re done that, please show me how mathematics is applicable to ethics in any way. It should make for an interesting read.

These are undeniable (mathematical) principles that are applicable because they clearly show who must yield in situations where two desires are in conflict. The interesting thing is that this system is able to create a more loving relationship than anything we now see. The people who have loving relationships are already using this system, even though they may be unaware of the principles they are using.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is because you don't understand why looking out at the external world changes the way light is used in terms of what it is that we see. It does not change the properties of light.

If light is located somewhere there must be a physical mechanism by which it became located there. Without a physical mechanism, then the properties of light are changed.

Without the mechanism, there is an impossible phenomena being asserted. Of course I don't understand, you are not explaining any mechanism, you are claiming magic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not weaseling away from explaining why light is at the retina. If you put everything that he has explained together, maybe you will eventually see why distance is not a factor, and why the image of the object (e.g. the non-absorbed photons) does not get reflected or travel through space/time in the efferent account, even though light travels.

Images are not part of this set of questions, only the location of light and how it got located there. So this response is yet another weasel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think I'm being contradictory, and am trying to weasel my way out of a claim that is implausible in your eyes, I'm very sorry, but that's not what I'm doing.

It's exactly what you are doing by avoiding the actual questions and responding to strawmen of your own making.

Your claim that light simply comes into spontaneous existence at the retina when we see something is not "implausible in (my) eyes", it is impossible within the framework of physical laws.

If that is your goal, to show me what a fundie I am, it's a lost cause because, although I have total faith in my father, I also see the soundness of his observations. No one has actually answered the question as to why this claim is causing so much anger.

Lessans claim isn't causing anger, your dishonesty is.

It certainly doesn't change GPS systems, and it wouldn't cause the world to burn up, as people have speculated.

Unsupported assertion. I posted exactly why real time seeing would preclude the existence of GPS a page or so back.

What if this knowledge changes our relationship to the external world in a positive way? Are you going to just dismiss this possibility because you are so sure you're right? Or are you going to give him a chance?

Argument from adverse consequences (fallacious reasoning)

Whatever you do is your prerogative. At this point though I'm tired of discussing the eyes because it's exhausting to repeat the same thing over and over and get nowhere. Instead of people considering that his claim may have merit, they are actually getting more and more incensed, and it's slowly building like a pressure cooker ready to explode. That's when the gang up starts. Therefore, it's a dead end discussion that will just give everyone more fodder to use for their daily fix of entertainment [at my expense]

Your claims are being investigated for merit. You can't answer even the simplest questions about your model without contradicting yourself or the known laws of physics, so you avoid answering a lot of the time. That is frustrating to people.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You mixed up Spacemonkey and me in the quote tags. I fixed them above

If that's the only problem, I can take a deep breath. I need air.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

So why the hell did I have to ask 3 times and why did you refuse to give a definitive one-word answer of "yes"? Frankly, at this point I don't believe you because of his examples in the book and your willingness to lie over and over to the people trying to teach you about vision and light.

You've never given anyone a chance to do anything other than pass judgement on it because in a decade you haven't been able to get past chapter 2. It's almost as if you don't want to discuss those chapters because they're even more indefensible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

So why the hell did I have to ask 3 times and why did you refuse to give a definitive one-word answer of "yes"? Frankly, at this point I don't believe you because of his examples in the book and your willingness to lie over and over to the people trying to teach you about vision and light.

You obviously have assumed that Lessans didn't know what he was talking about, and you're basing your accusations on this assumption. I have to say there's no basis to talk Christina. If you decide to change your attitude to one of respect, maybe I'll listen, but right now you consider this thread mere lulz, and I'm not willing to play this game.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

You've never given anyone a chance to do anything other than pass judgement on it because in a decade you haven't been able to get past chapter 2. It's almost as if you don't want to discuss those chapters because they're even more indefensible.

Do you see how many times you have resorted to "a decade ago"? Do you see how obnoxious this is? Shouldn't this give you pause when I tell you that you cannot go by my online history? I am not interested in talking to you. You are worse than any libertarian philosopher who thinks he knows it all because man believed in free will long before now, so anything that is learned is falsified by virtue that the truth of free will has already been established.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This goes back to the anatomy of the eye. You never explained how the brain could look out when there are opaque structures between the brain and the eyes lenses. You've never explained how the brain could look out at all. As Spacemoneky explained, looking is something a person does with their eyes. Does the brain have it's own little eyes looking out through our regular eyes?

Why is the eye full of afferent neurons? How does the brain do something efferent with afferent neurons? What is the mechanism by which the brain looks out?

Without a light sensor such as the retina or the replacement retina, how exactly do you propose light be transduced? Where would the signals come from? Why would you expect photons to be transduced if those photons aren't detected in the first place because you require that the light detector be removed?

That's like asking us to create a photograph without photosensitive paper, or film, or a digital light detector like a CCD. If an essential part of the system is eliminated that system can't function.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've in fact shown it to be impossible.

It rather does. You have "explained" away all plausibility by asserting impossible things...like light being located on Earth that is not located on Earth.

Yes, it does. If your assertions are true, then the laws of physics do not hold at all. As has been shown to you. Light can't be at the retina and not at the retina at the same time.

Nobody is threatened, because it is not true.

If we saw in real time, then the technology would never have come about in the first place. It wouldn't exist at all. There would be no GPS, as I demonstrated almost two years ag and you completely evaded

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But the important point is that we are seeing the light and not the laser.

So what? We see the image of the moon on a backdrop of a pinhole camera also.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You've been given links to studies (some of them video links) demonstrating bionic eyes that disprove Lessans' claims regarding sight by your own criteria. Similarly, you've been given links to studies demonstrating that people can "see" due to direct stimulation of the visual cortex, completely bypassing the eyes and optic nerves.

Repeatedly.

You've consistently ignored those links. In some cases, you've flat-out stated that you have no intention of reading them.

No, I have looked at certain links and I'm still not convinced. The visual cortex is always stimulated by the optic nerve, but does this mean what you think it means? You are not acting like a scientist. You're acting like a playground bully.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If you have the slightest shred of intellectual integrity [I'd put the odds of that at somewhere between none and zero)], then you'll look up the links for your own damn self.

Why the anger? Just forget it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

When we see the red spot on the wall we are not seeing the laser. The laser is the device that is projecting the light onto the wall. The laser itself is not even in our field of view. All we see is the wall and the red spot. What are we seeing when we see the red spot?

The laser is turned on, isn't it? Turn it off and see what happens. We can't see the sun before it's come over the horizon, but we can see the image of the sun under certain atmospheric conditions.

Why can we see the Sun's image before sunrise and after sunset?

Technically, we can't. Sunrise is defined as the moment that the Sun first appears over the horizon. So, by definition, you can't see the Sun before it appears. But you're right that we can see the Sun even when it is *geometrically* just below the horizon, at both sunrise and sunset. This is because of the refraction of the light from the Sun by the Earth's atmosphere--the Earth's atmosphere bends the path of the light so that we see the Sun in a position slightly different from where it really is. The magnitude of this effect varies with latitude, but it's strongest at the equator, where the Sun rises 2 minutes earlier than it would if the Earth had no atmosphere, and sets 2 minutes after it would if the Earth had no atmosphere.

Curious About Astronomy: Why can we see the sun's image before sunrise and after sunset?