A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Another point I'd like to make: he did not say light doesn't travel. He said light does travel, so it is YOU that misunderstood him.

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons of light
emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the
earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness,
this only means the photons of light are on the other side.

You should have quoted the whole passage, the next line is interesting.

"Once the light is here it remains here because the photons

of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us

because these photons are already present."

It seems that Lessans believed that photons would arrive from the Sun and then just hover around being replenished by the energy of the Sun. It seems that Lessans failed to understand that photons are the energy that is emitted by the Sun and are not little bodies that need to be constantly refueled by the Sun. This would explain why he believed that photons are connected to the sun to be refuled or to an object also to be refuled, somehow, from that object. Apparently Lessans believed that the molecuels of light needed to be in contact with the emitting source or the reflecting object to be constantly refueled, and the molecules of light could not travel very far before they would 'peter out' and faded away if they traveled too far to be refueled. Lessans original term for photons was a 'molecule of light' and Peacegirl changed it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Peacegirl, you are quite possibly the single most dishonest person I've ever encountered.

Wow, that sounds pretty bad.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That you think you're serving a "higher purpose" with your "Lying for Lessans" doesn't excuse your blatant dishonesty.

Lying for Lessans? I can't believe what a circus this has turned into.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If you think I've been at all dishonest, then provide quotes proving it. Go on. I dare you. I double-dog dare you. After all, plenty of people -- myself included -- have quoted you saying things that you know perfectly well aren't true.

Like what? I may sound like a weasel because I am unable to explain things as clearly as I'd like, but I am not doing this to defraud anyone. You aren't dishonest; you're just not nice calling me an ignoramus way back when, and writing a long diatribe against me.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If you can't do this (and you can't), then you're admitting that this is just one more example of your rampant dishonesty.

You're not dishonest except when you say that I'm dishonest. That is a very dishonest thing to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You should have quoted the whole passage, the next line is interesting.

"Once the light is here it remains here because the photons

of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us

because these photons are already present."

It seems that Lessans believed that photons would arrive from the Sun and then just hover around being replenished by the energy of the Sun. It seems that Lessans failed to understand that photons are the energy that is emitted by the Sun and are not little bodies that need to be constantly refueled by the Sun.

That's not what he meant either. He meant that light is here; it arrived, therefore it doesn't take another 8.5 minutes to get here.

Originally Posted by thedoc

This would explain why he believed that photons are connected to the sun to be refuled or to an object also to be refuled, somehow, from that object. Apparently Lessans believed that the molecuels of light needed to be in contact with the emitting source or the reflecting object to be constantly refuled, and the molecuels of light could not travel very far before they would 'peter out' and faded away if they traveled too far to be refuled. Lessans original term for photons was a 'molecule of light' and Peacegirl changed it.

Nothing you just said is what he believed. Another failed attempt to discredit him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yes, they have. You have lied repeatedly. In the same conversation with me, here is an example lie:

You said:
"Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon."

I said:
"Light is the same as photons. Meanwhile you said the opposite."

And then you lied:
"I never said the opposite."

You're a liar, peacegirl.

Nope, I'm not a liar because that implies intent. I do not want my answers (some right, some not) to be used against Lessans. It may look like I'm weaseling to get out of something, but I'm really not. My mistake was getting involved in this discussion because there is no way Lessans' claim could be given a fair analysis. This is no one's fault.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I've read the book at least twice and some parts several times just to look for some specific reference, but no, I did not get any new meaning from each reading. To get any meaning from a book, there has to be meaning there in the first place, and Lessans book has no meaning to find.

How come I'm still learning from this knowledge? This tells me what a good reader you are.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, I'm not a liar because that implies intent. I do not want my answers (some right, some not) as a reason that people are not going to read the book. It may look like I'm weaseling to get out of something, but I'm really not.

your answers demonstrate a clear intent to divert and evade the questiions being asked by posting comments that are not related to the questions.

Your answers are going to put people off of reading the book.

It certainly looks like you are weaseling to get out of giving direct answers to questions that bring up important points about the book.

[peacegirl]

This was the first paragraph of Aldous Huxleys Brave New World Revisited. For all intents and purposes, Decline and Fall of All Evil has been skimmed over, taken out of context, and not examined the way it should have, given the type of book it is. I think oversimplification is dangerous, and that's what people have done.

The soul of wit may become the very body of untruth. However elegant and memorable, brevity can never, in the nature of things, do justice to all the facts of a complex situation. On such a theme one can be brief only by omission and simplification. Omission and sim*plification help us to understand -- but help us, in many cases, to understand the wrong thing; for our compre*hension may be only of the abbreviator's neatly formu*lated notions, not of the vast, ramifying reality from which these notions have been so arbitrarily abstracted.

http://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/index.html

[But]

A simple example of a three-sided equation.

(Formula, Interpretation, Interpretand)
(Formula, Interpretation, Interpretand = Observer)
(Formula, map(Formula -> LTS), Observer)
(first-order-logic formula, function {formula -> Transition system}, Observer)
(CTL*xSU(2), f -> LTS(f), Self)

Get it?

If not, fuck off.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How come I'm still learning from this knowledge? This tells me what a good reader you are.

Your "Learning", (if that is what you want to call it) has been clearly demonstrated by your posts on this thread.

My only failing as a reader is that I cannot decipher gibberish.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels.

So why do you keep complaining whenever we ask about traveling light in your account?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

your answers demonstrate a clear intent to divert and evade the questiions being asked by posting comments that are not related to the questions.

Your answers are going to put people off of reading the book.

It certainly looks like you are wealeling to get out of giving direct answers to questions that bring up important points about the book.

Thedoc, why do you act like you understood the book when you clearly don't? You talk about doctors practicing without licenses, as if this is the worst thing in the world. You misconstrue everything because you have no grasp of anything.

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You should have quoted the whole passage, the next line is interesting.

"Once the light is here it remains here because the photons

of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us

because these photons are already present."

It seems that Lessans believed that photons would arrive from the Sun and then just hover around being replenished by the energy of the Sun. It seems that Lessans failed to understand that photons are the energy that is emitted by the Sun and are not little bodies that need to be constantly refueled by the Sun. This would explain why he believed that photons are connected to the sun to be refuled or to an object also to be refuled, somehow, from that object. Apparently Lessans believed that the molecuels of light needed to be in contact with the emitting source or the reflecting object to be constantly refuled, and the molecuels of light could not travel very far before they would 'peter out' and faded away if they traveled too far to be refuled. Lessans original term for photons was a 'molecule of light' and Peacegirl changed it.

Molecuels. Molecuels. Molecuels. Refuled Molecuels of Litgh.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you EFFERENT VISION! I know that's not good enough for you. I don't want to continue the conversation. If you believe I failed in my efforts, oh well.

How is "EFFERENT VISION!" an answer to anything I asked? Let's see how that works...

Where did the photons at the retina come from and how did they get there?




If there are photons at the retina as soon as the Sun is ignited, then where did they come from?




If they came from the Sun, then when were they at the Sun?




Is this kind of mindless stupidity good enough for you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So why do you keep complaining whenever we ask about traveling light in your account?

I just am tired of talking about it. I don't know how to explain (any better than I already have) the mechanism that allows the film/retina to be within optical range in the efferent account. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means I'm having a difficult time offering you a satisfactory answer, an answer that will allow you to see that this is, in fact, a plausible model.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may sound like a weasel because I am unable to explain things as clearly as I'd like...

No, Peacegirl. You sound like a weasel because you don't even try to explain the things you are asked about.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just am tired of talking about it.

It would be less effort if you were to try honestly answering what I ask you instead of constantly evading and ignoring my questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That doesn't mean it's wrong.

That your account is contradictory means it is wrong. And don't tell me it isn't. You've been deliberately evading and ignoring the post where I explain your contradiction to you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It just means I'm having a difficult time offering you a satisfactory answer, an answer that will allow you to see that this is, in fact, a plausible model.

That you can't explain where the light at the retina came from or how it got there means it is definitely not a plausible model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It would be less effort if you were to try honestly answering what I ask you instead of constantly evading and ignoring my questions.

I realize that no matter what I say, it will be used against me because people believe that science holds the right answer, and I will be seen as the worst fundie on the internet.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That doesn't mean it's wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That your account is contradictory means it is wrong. And don't tell me it isn't. You've been deliberately evading and ignoring the post where I explain your contradiction to you.

I have heard your argument about where I'm being contradictory enough times to hear it in my dreams.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It just means I'm having a difficult time offering you a satisfactory answer, an answer that will allow you to see that this is, in fact, a plausible model.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That you can't explain where the light at the retina came from or how it got there means it is definitely not a plausible model.

Maybe not to you, but I still believe he was right whether it makes sense to you or not. I still don't understand why you can't let go. You should be happy to be the winner.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that no matter what I say, it will be used against me because people believe that science holds the right answer, and I will be seen as the worst fundie on the internet.

This is no excuse for not even trying to honestly answer our questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have heard your argument about where I'm being contradictory enough times to hear it in my dreams.

Then it should be easy for you to tell me what the contradiction is that I've been pointing out and asking you about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe not to you, but I still believe he was right even though it may not make sense coming from your vantage point.

It doesn't make sense to you either. There is no vantage point from which it makes sense for light to be somewhere when you can't explain where it came from or how it got there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is no excuse for not even trying to honestly answer our questions.

Then it should be easy for you to tell me what the contradiction is that I've been pointing out and asking you about.

It doesn't make sense to you either. There is no vantage point from which it makes sense for light to be somewhere when you can't explain where it came from or how it got there.

Like I said, he did not come to this finding in this way. As logical as your denouncement of his findings are, I don't think the way you're analyzing this is going to determine whether this account is actually plausible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that no matter what I say, it will be used against me because people believe that science holds the right answer, and I will be seen as the worst fundie on the internet.

According to the evidence that is avalable science does hold the right answer, and Lessans claims have no evidence to support them.

Your posts have demonstrated that you are a fundie, but I doubt that you are the worst, your claims are, so far, harmless.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Molecules. Molecules. Molecules. Refueled Molecules of Light.

Thankyou.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Remember when you said that if anyone invented a functioning bionic eye, this would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision?

Remember how, when it was pointed out that these already exist, you denied ever having made such a claim? That's called lying, you know.

Then, when LadyShea provided links, demonstrating that you had indeed made the claim that you'd just denied making, you immediately shifted tactics and tried to distract everyone, hoping they'd forget that you had been caught in yet another blatant lie.


But thedoc is right; quoting all of your blatant lies would be a rather lengthy and time-consuming process.

TLR, I just read an article in the July '13 issue of Scientific American about restoring sight to individuals from age 6 ot older than 20 and the research that is ongoing as to how the brain learn to intrepret the visual signals from the eyes that can now see. Apparently the process is not imediate and the brain takes some time to learn how to intrepret the signals from the eye. If you have seen the article or can look at it I would appreciate your thoughts on the research. I haven't bought that magazine for years and just picked it up on a whim, I didn't even know the article was in it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, he did not come to this finding in this way. As logical as your denouncement of his findings are, I don't think the way you're analyzing this is going to determine whether this account is actually plausible.

It makes no difference how he came to his findings. You still can't plausibly claim photons will be somewhere without any possible explanation for where they came from or how they got there. What exactly is wrong with this analysis, Peacegirl? Do you think it is plausible to say light will be somewhere when you can't explain where it came from or how it got there?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not have a method...

Only madness.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As the Moon moves along its orbit around the Earth its hemisphere toward the sun is fully illuminated.

But from the Earth we see only the hemisphere that is turned toward us.

Why do you think that is?

Let's bring the example a little closer to home. Suppose that you are standing face to face at arms distance to another person. It is noon on a clear and sunny day. Can you see the back of that person's head? If not, why not? Please give your explanation in terms of efferent vision.