A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not presenting misinformation when I discuss Lessans' claims and why he came up with this finding. How will you feel when this claim turns out to be true? You should watch what you say because your words may come back to haunt you one day.

You're continually presenting misinformation. Why are you linking to crackpots or lying?

I don't care if Lessans ideas are true or not - his ideas about vision are obviously useless as we do very well by completely ignoring him. And most of his ideas are incoherent; I'm not even sure what his ideas being 'true' means. since you can't even get his story straight. If it turns out he's secretly written a paper with a better explanation than you've provided, I'll think it's a shame he had a liar advocating for him and linking to crackpots. But I think that's unlikely.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And in addition to completely understanding basic physics, he fails basic biology as well. In particular, he completely misunderstands what DNA is and how it functions.


He's not trying to be "objective" at all. He's starting with a false premise ("DNA is a code") and then trying to "prove" that very premise using circular logic.

So DNA is not a blueprint for life?

Like I said, DNA is a blueprint for life. It’s a code and a language. It has an alphabet (A = Adenine, G = Guanine, T = Thymine, C = Cytosine) and that alphabet spells out the instructions for everything.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, I won't do that and get crucified by you, which is what you're aiming for. That would be self-inflicted pain and I'm not a masochist.

Actually, I don't think you understood a word he said. You get very hostile if anything threatens your worldview, which you are displaying right now. How can you be objective with this frame of mind? You're completely irrational.

Translation from peacegirl/Lessans speak into plain English:

I've got no idea what this guy is talking about, but he calls all major scientists crackpots, and that give me hope that my idiot father is not a crackpot.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These questions don't sound legit so I'm not answering them.

Not legit in what way? They are fundamental questions about how vision works. If you can't anwer them in terms of Efferent Vision, then Efferent Vision has nothing useful to say about how vision works. If you can answer them, but won't, then you are just being evasive, which suggests that you are trying to hide something.

Why can't we see the back of another person's head when we are standing face-to-face with them in broad daylight?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

You're continually presenting misinformation. Why are you linking to crackpots or lying?

I don't care if Lessans ideas are true or not - his ideas about vision are obviously useless as we do very well by completely ignoring him. And most of his ideas are incoherent; I'm not even sure what his ideas being 'true' mean. If it turns out he's secretly written a paper with a better explanation than you've provided, I'll think it's a shame he had a liar advocating for him and linking to crackpots. But I think that's unlikely.

He wrote Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality where he explained what his observations were. You can think it's all crap, but I have a right to publish this book and share his findings. Truth will be told one way or another. He would laugh at your comment about me, as a liar, advocating for him. He would applaud me knowing how difficult this process has been. People can easily criticize me when they haven't walked the walk, or been in my shoes. You've all got such nerve to say the things you say.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People can easily criticize me when they haven't walked the walk..

Yes, in this case, "walking the walk" means getting a real education. Too bad neither you nor your father walked that walk.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Translation from peacegirl/Lessans speak into plain English:

I've got no idea what this guy is talking about, but he calls all major scientists crackpots, and that give me hope that my idiot father is not a crackpot.

No, it just creates a more equal playing field since Lessans has been unfairly portrayed. I am thrilled to find people who think independently and can see the flaws that science denies. I call that crackpottery. The arrogance that I've seen in here has created such a stench, it needs fumigating. Maybe this will help clear the air.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, in this case, "walking the walk" means getting a real education. Too bad neither you nor your father walked that walk.

That's what I mean by "arrogance lifting it's ugly head". You are too cock sure of yourself David.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The arrogance has created such a stench in here, it needs fumigating.

Remind us again: Who, exactly, is it who's claiming that several hundred years of careful scientific investigation regarding the physics, anatomy, and physiology of sight are wrong? And that Relativity Theory is wrong? And that pretty-much all of Cosmology is wrong?

All of this based on the "astute observations" of one uneducated guy who did no experiments whatsoever, but simply assumed that because he believed it, it must be correct?


Forget all those inconvenient facts that disprove Lessans' claims! Forget all about Relativity Theory and Astronomy! Forget the fact that many of our basic technologies rely on the accuracy of our understanding of such concepts and that the world works the way that we think it does! Forget that his one acolyte must resort to distortion and outright lies to support her case! Lessans has declared that he's right, and if he were to have been mistaken about that, he would have noticed and corrected the mistake! Therefore, all those thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to objective study of the world around us are necessarily wrong and their conclusions about how the world works are just so much hot air.

Who is being arrogant again?




Scientists: "If we want to understand the world around us, we must study it as carefully and as objectively as possible. And we must share and compare our results, so as to weed out error and fraud, and to correct mistaken interpretations. And we must always keep in mind that our data are necessarily incomplete."

Lessans: "Screw that! That sounds like work! I've made astute observations!"

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would applaud me knowing how difficult this process has been.

If he cared about you at all, he'd weep uncontrollably over what you've become.

Then again, maybe not. After all it was Lessans himself who uttered the Great Commission:

Originally Posted by Seymouron

I only hope that my three children; Linda, Janis, and Marc will understand this knowledge sufficiently so that they can perhaps bring this knowledge to light at least in their lifetime.

Note the incorrect semicolon use, a sign of true genius if ever there was one.

Your brother's untimely demise was tragic. Thankfully, though, he was spared the indignity of seeing you turning his father into an Internet laughingstock.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it just creates a more equal playing field since Lessans has been unfairly portrayed. I am thrilled to find people who think independently and can see the flaws that science denies. I call that crackpottery. The arrogance that I've seen in here has created such a stench, it needs fumigating. Maybe this will help clear the air.

And yet you cannot even say why you think what this guy claims supports Lessans. And here's a hint: It doesn't.

Long before relativity theory came along, indeed hundreds of years before it came along, we discovered that we did not see in real time. Relativity has nothing to do with the failure of real-time seeing. It's just that if we actually saw in real time, the universe would be so different that relativity theory would not have been formulated in the first place.

Well, actually, as has been explained to you, if we saw in real time, the whole night sky would be white and we would not exist in the first place. So we could not see in real time for that reason alone, because no eyes would exist to see anything.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Lessans: "Screw that! That sounds like work! I've made astute observations!"

As our own Clutch Munny wrote in an entirely different discussion:

The reason that it takes hard work to learn the work of actual philosophers of mind and actual psychologists and actual neurologists is because this stuff is complicated. A highly nuanced and refined set of terminology, scientific concepts, and functional neuroanatomy has sprung up to capture just how complicated it is.

No doubt it is frustrating to want to make a Great Big Breakthrough and then discover that all the easy, sophomoric thoughts were thought long ago, and debunked or improved. These days, alas, you actually have to read cognitive psychology in depth, and learn various twists and turns of contemporary philosophy of mind, and maybe even learn a shitload of math in order to understand computational neuroscience, as a prelude to making even some small contribution.

Learning things and interacting with experts who will then respect your insight is hard. Bullshitting on the internet is easy. Depends what you ultimately want to do and be, I guess.

Fits peacegirl and ol' Seymour like a glove.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Only if you're completely science-illiterate.

Lest you forget, Lessans book made sense to Peacegirl as well.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're such a jerk Maturin. I'm writing this for others, not you. He is not talking about religion here. He is trying to be objective in his analysis as to whether complex life came about by design or by a long chain of mutations, and he has a pretty good case for ID.

Despite being a devout Christian myself, my reading of Genesis didn’t create an inherent theological problem with the idea of some kind of evolution taking place. Frankly I hadn’t looked that deeply into the question up to that point, but I didn’t necessarily think that Darwinism was fundamentally incompatible with Genesis chapter 1 either. I was open to the evidence, wherever it might lead.

If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists

'Intelligent Design' is a religious concept, any case for ID is a case for religion.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And in addition to completely understanding basic physics, he fails basic biology as well. In particular, he completely misunderstands what DNA is and how it functions.


He's not trying to be "objective" at all. He's starting with a false premise ("DNA is a code") and then trying to "prove" that very premise using circular logic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it DNA is a set of instructions to build things like proteins, and a mutation will cause it to build a slightly different protein. Different sections of DNA can be turned on and off as needed.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is not talking about religion here.

He's proffering what he claims is proof of the personal creator God in which he believes, you thieving idiot.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not presenting misinformation when I discuss Lessans' claims. I am presenting his reasoning and analysis as to why he believed the eyes did not work like the other senses.

How about when you said the photons would be at the retina at 12:02 and at the Sun two minutes previously at 12:00? Was that Lessans' reasoning and analysis? Or was that you presenting misinformation?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have every right to share his findings. How will you feel if his claim turns out to be true? You really should watch what you say because your words may come back to haunt you one day.

Like your words do, every time you claim to have said one thing and we quote you saying the opposite?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Not legit in what way? They are fundamental questions about how vision works. If you can't anwer them in terms of Efferent Vision, then Efferent Vision has nothing useful to say about how vision works. If you can answer them, but won't, then you are just being evasive, which suggests that you are trying to hide something.

Why can't we see the back of another person's head when we are standing face-to-face with them in broad daylight?

I already answered this and I'm not answering it one more time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would applaud me knowing how difficult this process has been.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

If he cared about you at all, he'd weep uncontrollably over what you've become.

Then again, maybe not. After all it was Lessans himself who uttered the Great Commission:

Note the incorrect semicolon use, a sign of true genius if ever there was one.

Is this all you care about, whether a semi-colon is in the wrong place, and this is what gives you the wherewithall to say such despicable things? You're so far out in left field, unless you have a true awakening, you will not be able to see the error of your ways.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

Your brother's untimely demise was tragic. Thankfully, though, he was spared the indignity of seeing you turning his father into an Internet laughingstock.

It's not within my control what other people think about my father or me, for that matter. I can only do what is within my control and that is exactly what I'm doing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Hey, she's a veritable expert in the venerated field of alt-med. She and Ranger Mike are like two peas in a pod, I tell you what! Wouldn't be at all surprised to find that she's fully versed in the fields of moon landing hoaxism, 9/11 trooferism and Sandy Hook denialism as well.

I had to look up "moon landing hoaxism, I never heard of it, nor 9/11 trooferism, and I certainly have never entertained the idea that Sandy Hook was a conspiracy. I'm just you're latest target for this nonsense.

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jsco...faked/FOX.html


The Jawa Report: How 9-11 Trooferism Hurts People In Real Life

sandy hook truthers - Salon.com

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

Kinda calls to mind the good ol' days when she was citing a Church of Scientology front group as her authority on psychotropic drugs.

Again, you love to twist things I say in passing. I never used this group as an authority on psychotropic drugs. I have no regard for the Church of Scientology. It's a cult.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

He's an idiot. The coordinates of spacetime - in particular the time coordinate - is not the same thing as the time an observer experiences. That's the whole point of relativity. You have to use a separate variable - the proper time - to denote the that, and that does not simply mean you get a '1' for the time coordinate. You can learn this on Wikipedia, under 'Definition of Four Velocity'. He's a crackpot.

But you don't care. You saw it, and think it supports Lessans, so you wave it around like a flag. Even if it's wrong, it might help Lessans case. You don't give a damn about what lies you might be peddling, so long as it helps your case.

He did not say relativity was wrong, but it depends on the way it is interpreted.

Is Relativity Wrong?

Does the impossibility of motion in spacetime invalidate Einstein's relativity? The answer depends on whether one takes spacetime to be physically existent (as relativists do) or as an abstract, non-existent, mathematical construct for the historical mapping of measured events. If one chooses the former, one is obviously a crackpot or a fraud, or both. If one chooses the latter, then general relativity is to be seen as a mere math trick: the physical mechanism of gravity is still out there and it is incumbent upon physicists to find it.

Not Against Relativity

I get angry emails from people accusing me of badmouthing relativity, one of the most corroborated theories of physics. I am not. In my opinion, the special and general theories of relativity are mathematically correct and make correct predictions. What is wrong are all the obviously false claims made on the basis of their correctness. Relativity does not allow motion in spacetime or time travel, as Dr. Wheeler, Sir Stephen Hawking, Dr. Kip Thorne and the others claim. It forbids motion in spacetime! It is important that people see relativity for what it is, a mathematical trick for the prediction of macroscopic phenomena involving the motion of bodies in a spatial coordinate system. Spacetime is an abstract mathematical construct, that is all. The other stuff (motion in spacetime, time travel, advanced and retarded waves, wormholes, etc...), is pure hogwash. This stuff is so trivially proven wrong in fact, that it is insulting to the lay public, the same public that funds most scientific projects. Even the relativity-derived notion of time dilation is hopelessly misleading. Time does not dilate (as if time could change!). On the contrary, it is the clocks that slow down (for whatever reason) resulting in longer measured intervals.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not say relativity was wrong, but it depends on the way it is interpreted.

He defines four-velocity wrong; he's a crackpot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Only someone who's almost totally ignorant regarding the field of Biology could make such a spectacularly ignorant claim. The notion that living things are "optimally designed" is ludicrously, laughibly false.

Could it be that we just don't know the reason for what appears to be a poorly constructed design, but later on it turns out that we just didn't know enough to understand the purpose behind it? Could it be we are the ones that are ignorant, not the designer? Just something to think about, you don't have to respond.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Obviously! Actually READING and STUDYING stuff is beyond you.

But I DID read the whole thing. Allow me to quote you the relevant passage from your second link to this guy:

See?

But this doesn't mean he's wrong because his belief is wrong. He's wrong because what he argues is empirically pure bullshit. Just like what Lessans argued.

See, that's the test. What is observed to be true, and what you and your nutter WANT to be true, DIFFER.

No David, it is not empirically bullshit. You just can't accept that what is observed to be true, and what you WANT to be true, differ.

[Spacemonkey]

So you are just going to keep on posting to whine and complain about how unfair everything is, instead of either being honest about vision or changing the subject?