A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you shut up about the real world? You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to what is real and what isn't. This has nothing to do with Oughts.

That is not what you said here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light should not be bringing special effects when we don't want them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Energy does not go on forever if it isn't fueled. I just don't get that.

There is a lot that you "just don't get". Your failure to "get" it has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. It has a great deal to do with the huge gaps in your knowledge and understanding.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that a photon can be at two places at one time.

When I asked you about the laser and the red spot on the wall you said that the light we were seeing was both on the wall and at the retina. That is the equivalent of saying that a photon can be in two places at one time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just glad this group isn't representative of the entire populace.

How do you know that it is not?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent vision makes this possible.

How?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I think that before you aim for a radio show you should try to do some free lectures at universities, libraries, coffee shops and anywhere else in your area that hosts talks because you need practice.

There are always street corners as well.

[Angakuk]

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Peacegirl, if I am not mistaken it has been demonstrated to you that there is no record of Gandhi ever saying or writing this. Why do you still have it attributed to him in your sig line? Isn't intentional false attribution a form of dishonesty?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

I haven't read that as of yet, but it's not at all surprising. Congenitally deaf persons who receive cochlear implants go through something similar. As a rule, children's brains learn how to interpret the impulses pretty quickly, whereas it takes longer for adult recipients of the implants. This appears to be at least in part because if some portion of the brain isn't being used (e.g. the auditory centers) the tissues will be co-opted for other functions.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You aren't dishonest; you're just not nice calling me an ignoramus way back when, and writing a long diatribe against me.

Believe me, I do not enjoy calling anyone an ignoramous. But you're so amazingly ignorant. More to the point, you're deliberately ignorant -- you go to great lengths to ensure that you stay ignorant about anything and everything that might challenge your precious worldview.

Yet you have the audacity and shameless hypocrisy to accuse others of being close-minded. That's deeply, deeply offensive. And such intellectual dishonesty and such deliberate -- indeed, such carefully cultivated -- ignorance thoroughly deserves to be challenged and exposed.

You're not dishonest except when you say that I'm dishonest.

Nope, that's more flagrant dishonesty on your part.

Like how, when you were confronted by the fact that bionic eyes already exist -- devices which you yourself repeatedly claimed would disprove Lessans' claims -- you lied and denied that you had made any such claims. When confronted with proof that you had made those claims, and that you had done so repeatedly, you tried to claim that you had mis-spoken somehow -- another lie on your part, to try to cover the one that had just been exposed.

Or how about the many, many times you've insisted that "according to science, images travel through space"? You've been corrected on that point many, many times, but you just keep repeating the claim. Repeating a claim that you know to be false is called lying.

Or how about your insistence on calling Lessans' claims "scientific" when -- by your own admission -- they were nothing of the sort? Then there's your habit of dishonestly claiming that the terms "scientific" and "undeniable" are synonyms, though nothing could be further from the truth.


We can go on, if you like. The point remains: you are certainly one of the most dishonest and hypocritical persons I've ever encountered.

[Vivisectus]

This book is clearly written. It makes every bit of sense. You will snub your nose at it, like the others in here, until this book gets recognized.

There is no amount of recognition that could ever convince me that this book is correct: I do not think there is enough bias in the world to overcome it's very obvious flaws. Look at the level of dishonesty and ignorance that you require to maintain your belief in it!

[Vivisectus]

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.

The book is Scientific, which means Undeniable, even though it did not use the scientific method. At the same time science cannot be trusted, as it leads to the wrong conclusions.

So, when your dad is being Scientific without adhering to the scientific method, then it is Undeniable, and you can absolutely trust it. But science done by anyone else, adhering to the scientific method, is completely unreliable and should be ignored when it flatly contradicts whatever your father says.

...but when this makes people think of you as dogmatic, then that is everybody else's fault.

For someone who thinks blaming is one of the things that allows evil to exist, you sure do a lot of it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I don't know why you close your ears when it comes to my explanation. I keep telling you that when we are looking outward at the object itself (not just light), the light that is being [reflected] from the object (regardless of the fact that it has not reached Earth yet), puts our retina or lens in optical range, which means that the photons are at the eye instantly. This is the polar opposite of traveling photons, which takes time to get where they're going.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Only madness.

Why do you say stuff like that Angakuk? And you tell me you're not sarcastic? All you've been for the last year is sarcastic, with a couple of legitimate questions in between.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

I think you're playing games with me, and I'm not interested.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know why you close your ears when it comes to my explanation. I keep telling you that when we are looking outward at the object itself (not just light), the light that is being [reflected] from the object (regardless of the fact that it has not reached Earth yet), puts our retina or lens in optical range, which means that the photons are at the eye instantly. This is the polar opposite of traveling photons, which takes time to get where they're going.

You've just put the light in two places at once again. You've just said light which is not yet at the Earth is also at the eye... on Earth! That's flatly contradictory. Also, how can you maintain both that all photons travel and that your account involves "the polar opposite of traveling photons"? That also is flatly contradictory. Plus you are describing photons getting from one place to another without traveling or taking time - which is the very definition of teleportation. These are all exactly the same problems you've run into every single time you've tried to explain this account. When will you admit to yourself that it makes no sense?

And you still haven't answered my questions. Regarding the light instantly at the eye in Lessans' newly ignited Sun scenario...

1) Where did this light come from?

2) When was it located at wherever it came from?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you shut up about the real world? You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to what is real and what isn't. This has nothing to do with Oughts.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is not what you said here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light should not be bringing special effects when we don't want them.

That sentence was not clear, my fault. The way I used the word "should" in that sentence has no relationship to "oughts" in human interaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Energy does not go on forever if it isn't fueled. I just don't get that.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There is a lot that you "just don't get". Your failure to "get" it has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. It has a great deal to do with the huge gaps in your knowledge and understanding.

Maybe so, but my lack of knowledge regarding light does not discredit Lesssans' claim that the EYES work differently than the other senses.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that a photon can be at two places at one time.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

When I asked you about the laser and the red spot on the wall you said that the light we were seeing was both on the wall and at the retina. That is the equivalent of saying that a photon can be in two places at one time.

No, if we see the red spot, we are in optical range, which means that it meets the requirements of efferent vision. It's really not that difficult. The problem that everyone is having is the fact that light travels, therefore it is believed that the pattern of any object the light bounces off of is now what shows up on film even if it's 100 years after the event (such as Columbus discovering America; I bring this example up because people can more easily see the absurdity). But, according to Lessans, no image of the object will show up at the retina or film from light alone because there is nothing in the light itself that is bringing anything. The light that is at the retina is in direct relationship to the object, or to the material substance, or to the atmosphere, which is happening NOW.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just glad this group isn't representative of the entire populace.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How do you know that it is not?

I don't think this group is representative, that's why. They think that their scientific method is the only way to prove something, and that they therefore have a monopoly on truth. I don't believe they do, although there is a place in science for this type of methodology.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There are always street corners as well.

Hey, we can do it together. You can preach on one side of the street, and I'll preach on the other.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But, according to Lessans, no image of the object will show up at the retina or film from light alone because there is nothing in the light itself that is bringing anything.

Strawman. There doesn't have to be anything in the light itself or which the light is bringing. All you need is the light. As I explained to you in a previous post which you have completely ignored several times already...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course there is. If light of one frequency is hitting one part of the retina (real or artificial) while light of a different frequency is hitting another part of the retina, then this is a pattern of light detection whose information can be sent to the brain. This is also exactly how a camera and film works. Different frequency light hits different parts of the film after coming from different parts of an object, resulting in an image with parts of differing colors. And this will happen so long as different frequencies of light are hitting different parts of the retina or film, regardless of whether or not the object the light came from is still in existence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Believe me, I do not enjoy calling anyone an ignoramous. But you're so amazingly ignorant. More to the point, you're deliberately ignorant -- you go to great lengths to ensure that you stay ignorant about anything and everything that might challenge your precious worldview.

That could be said for you too Lone Ranger. It works both ways. You are implying that your worldview is more accurate than mine. How do you know this? You are placing the cart before the horse by telling me that your conclusions have to be right, which concludes that his observations have to be wrong. That is why your analysis of me is that I'm being willfully ignorant, but am I? I am listening to everything that is being expressed, but I don't believe just because we can see light and dark using electrodes proves that the brain interprets images this way in normal sight. I'm not convinced. Call it faith if that's what you think it is. My father was not the kind of person that would make claims without knowing what he was talking about, never ever. I know that doesn't matter to you, but it does to me. Should I try to accommodate you by giving in, so that you won't think poorly of me? That would be a sham, a total lie.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yet you have the audacity and shameless hypocrisy to accuse others of being close-minded. That's deeply, deeply offensive. And such intellectual dishonesty and such deliberate -- indeed, such carefully cultivated -- ignorance thoroughly deserves to be challenged and exposed.

Once again, you are so sure he was wrong, when the irony is that it could be you that's wrong. This is the unfortunate position I have found myself in (as his daughter), because I don't have the luxury of having the support that you have.

You're not dishonest except when you say that I'm dishonest.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Nope, that's more flagrant dishonesty on your part.

That's a matter of opinion.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Like how, when you were confronted by the fact that bionic eyes already exist -- devices which you yourself repeatedly claimed would disprove Lessans' claims -- you lied and denied that you had made any such claims. When confronted with proof that you had made those claims, and that you had done so repeatedly, you tried to claim that you had mis-spoken somehow -- another lie on your part, to try to cover the one that had just been exposed.

I'm not perfect Lone Ranger. I was being interrogated, and this forced me to come up with an answer so that people wouldn't think I am ignorant on this subject. Bottom line, in spite of what I don't know about physics, I believe he was right and I still do. It was inaccurate of me to say that a bionic eye would prove efferent vision wrong. All a bionic eye really does is replace parts of the eye that aren't functioning. Just because electrodes send impulses to the brain does not mean that this is normal sight, or will ever be normal sight. That's why people have to learn how to interpret what the pixels represent. You call that real sight?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Or how about the many, many times you've insisted that "according to science, images travel through space"? You've been corrected on that point many, many times, but you just keep repeating the claim. Repeating a claim that you know to be false is called lying.

No, it's that I have no other way to describe what I am talking about. I am using the term "pattern". I have to explain that the light, unless we're looking at the object, does not have that pattern that goes on forever.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Or how about your insistence on calling Lessans' claims "scientific" when -- by your own admission -- they were nothing of the sort? Then there's your habit of dishonestly claiming that the terms "scientific" and "undeniable" are synonyms, though nothing could be further from the truth.

This to me is such a triviality that it makes me think this is all about ego. Let me say this again: He wanted to make sure no one confused these terms, so he said they were synonymous in so far as this book was concerned. I have sent the book in, and I am not changing the term. He also used the term "mathematical". People don't like that either. If this is the reason you wouldn't read the book, or take it seriously, is very unfortunate. People have picked this book apart to where if I listened to everyone, I should burn it and never speak of it again. That is not going to happen.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

We can go on, if you like. The point remains: you are certainly one of the most dishonest and hypocritical persons I've ever encountered.

I'm sorry to hear that. I don't feel that I am. I think you feel this way because you are absolutely convinced that you are right and he is wrong, and it's only because of my denial in seeing the truth (your truth) that is causing the problem. Your analysis is flawed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The book is Scientific, which means Undeniable, even though it did not use the scientific method. At the same time science cannot be trusted, as it leads to the wrong conclusions.

So, when your dad is being Scientific without adhering to the scientific method, then it is Undeniable, and you can absolutely trust it. But science done by anyone else, adhering to the scientific method, is completely unreliable and should be ignored when it flatly contradicts whatever your father says.

...but when this makes people think of you as dogmatic, then that is everybody else's fault.

For someone who thinks blaming is one of the things that allows evil to exist, you sure do a lot of it.

I am 100% justified in my anger. You would never act like this in the new world because no one would ever make claims they aren't sure of. The fact that there are so many fraudulent claims out there makes you believe that this is just another one, which puts me in a defensive position.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That could be said for you too Lone Ranger. It works both ways.

No, it doesn't. TLR is not ignorant of basic physics. You are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are implying that your worldview is more accurate than mine. How do you know this?

It's called evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why your analysis of me is that I'm being willfully ignorant, but am I?

Yes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not convinced. Call it faith if that's what you think it is.

That's exactly what it is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My father was not the kind of person that would make claims without knowing what he was talking about, never ever.

Yes, he was. And so are you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not perfect Lone Ranger. I was being interrogated, and this forced me to come up with an answer so that people wouldn't think I am ignorant on this subject.

If you weren't ignorant you wouldn't have had to make something up on the spot which made you look ridiculous.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was inaccurate of me to say that a bionic eye would prove efferent vision wrong. All a bionic eye really does is replace parts of the eye that aren't functioning.

You've said that efferent vision differs only in what the eye does, yet we know what the eye does because we can replace it with a purely afferent bionic replacement. Therefore we know that the eye is purely afferent and does nothing differently from what the afferent account says it does.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's that I have no other way to describe what I am talking about. I am using the term "pattern". I have to explain that the light, unless we're looking at the object, does not have that pattern that goes on forever.

Optics and basic physics say that the light will continue in the same pattern unless it is absorbed or reflected, and you've said that you aren't challenging basic optics or physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your analysis is flawed.

No, yours is.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just curious, how is that observed?

Communication with the Mars rovers via radio waves, millisecond laser pulses to the moon, using mirrors to redirect light around corners, astronomy in general.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Energy does not go on forever if it isn't fueled. I just don't get that.

It's fundamental law of physics, or if you prefer God

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that a photon can be at two places at one time.

You have, many many times. You just said it again

the light that is being [reflected] from the object (regardless of the fact that it has not reached Earth yet), puts our retina or lens in optical range, which means that the photons are at the eye instantly.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That sentence was not clear, my fault. The way I used the word "should" in that sentence has no relationship to "oughts" in human interaction.

Human interaction? What's that got to do with anything? Should and ought are synonyms, so what did you mean when you used should? Can you rewrite the sentence more clearly without the word should?

I don't think this group is representative, that's why. They think that their scientific method is the only way to prove something, and that they therefore have a monopoly on truth. I don't believe they do, although there is a place in science for this type of methodology.

How about all the people at all the forums you have visited....representative of the general population or not? In your market research, have you identified a representative group?

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks! LadyShea came up with a lot of ideas. I now have to form an outline and decide what to do first. I wrote to quite a few philosophers through email, and only one person responded. I gave him the website and he never wrote back. I am limited in that I cannot travel all over the country and do book tours. I will have to do everything from home, which is not a problem with today's technology. I also have a very small budget but with a little creativity, I can probably overcome that hurdle too.

Maybe it would be good to take a step back for a moment and figure out who your target audience will be at first since "everyone" is too broad for a new effort. This part is easy and fun. Just start to make a list and write down everything that you think of without over-thinking it yet or editing it. Afterwards we can look at it with you and see what else people might think of. They can be very broad descriptions at first like "people who are interested in philosophy but not formal philosophers because they nitpick", "people who are open-minded to new and creative solutions to world problems", "people who don't accept conventional wisdom as an absolute", "people willing to consider new age ideas", "people who believe in alternatives to the scientific method", "people who question medical science" and stuff like that. Don't worry about where to find them yet.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thedoc, why do you act like you understood the book when you clearly don't? You misconstrue everything because you have no grasp of anything.

Actually I do understand the book, and I can decifer gibberish, to a point. The real problem is that your understanding and my understanding are polar oposites and I think I know the source of the problem. Your understanding is efferent in that you project onto the book the meanings you want to believe in, such as that the book will bring about world peace and happy maritial relations. I understand the book afferently, in that I read what is there and relate it to the real world, so I have no delusions about what it can achieve. We are simply seeing the book from opposite perspectives, fantasy vs. reality.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know why you close your ears when it comes to my explanation.

I keep telling you...

... that when we are looking outward at the object itself (not just light), the light that is being [reflected] from the object (regardless of the fact that it has not reached Earth yet), puts our retina or lens in optical range, which means that the photons are at the eye instantly.

You just said it again! After lying by denying that you had said this! You just said, again, that the photons are at the eye, even though the photons have not reached the eye yet. IOW, the photons both are, and are not, at the eye -- a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction!

You wonder why people hold you in contempt and regard your father as a buffoon, do you?