|
|
07-22-2013, 07:56 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
It just amazes me that you, peacegirl, have someone here, wstewart, who agrees with Lessans' third claim, but actually does the spade work to flesh it out, mathematically and metaphysically, and you are too thick-headed to realize this!
|
It is not the same because, according to Lessans, there is no connection between a person who is in a coma or sleeping, and the next person born. I admit I have not read his work, but from what you just wrote, they don't relate except for the claim that death isn't the end.
|
Jesus. Christ. In. A. Cracker.
YES. There is no personal connection between the deceased and the next born. This is also what Clark and Stewart write. How many times have I explained this to you?
|
Maybe in that sense these accounts of death are similar, but there is no numerical identity between one person and another, in Lessans' account, or between one person's death and the next child born. So where does "merging" come into play? And if you dare call me another name David, you're going on ignore, not pretend ignore either.
|
07-22-2013, 07:56 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
When I need a break I jump over to the next tab and post completely irrelevant music videos on FB for my friends.
|
07-22-2013, 07:58 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
And for the record, peacegirl, you didn't miscalculate the speed of light. You claimed that scientists had. And you offered this as an "explanation" for why there's no delay between seeing a supernova and photographing it.
This was back when you were claiming that cameras and eyes see differently. A claim you later denied you had made, until your own words were quoted back to you.
|
This entire discussion is not my expertise, and you know it. This has nothing to do with the soundness of his observations. I was being pressured to come up with an answer, and it made me look like a weasel. Now it's much more clear to me why a photograph would be the same as what we see with the naked eye. Vivisectus said it's because light travels at a certain speed and strikes the eye and camera at the same exact time. That's the afferent account. The efferent account is that the object must be in the field of view, whether it's the eye or a camera. That would put the light at the film instantly, just like the retina. It would be no different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
This is in direct contradiction to your recent claim that you don't question the relevant science.
|
I don't question the relevant science when it comes to the basics. I do question whether it offers a complete understanding of what's going on with the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
And yes, when I explained why neurons can only conduct impulses from dendrites to axons, and not the other way -- and that the human optic nerve contains no efferent neurons -- you most-definitely did say that you thought that this means that we don't understand how neurons actually function and/or that we don't know enough about the anatomy of the eye to make that claim. As if the laws of chemistry don't apply to neurons. As if the eye contains some (presumably invisible), yet-to-be-discovered macroscopic structures.
|
Here again I am not arguing that scientists know the difference between an afferent and efferent neuron, but this in itself does not prove that impulses are decoded into images that allow for normal vision. I'm not convinced. You may think I am trying to weasel again, but I'm really not. I just believe there is something to Lessans' claim and I won't give up. The brain and eyes are one entity, therefore the structure of neurons might not even play a part in the direction the brain sees.
|
The Brain and the Eye are physically seperate but connected by the optic nerve, the eyes are not located in the brain. If you dismiss the physiological structure of the brain/eye system, that leaves you with a spiritual connection, and this leads back to previous observations that your beliefs in Lessans book are just like a religious belief. Unless you can provide a physiological explination, your have only a religious belief. Science has made extensive observations of the Brain/Eye system and have observed signals from the eye to the brain that corrospond to images in the brain resulting from impulses from the eye, that are triggered by light striking the retina. Conclusive proof of the afferent vision theory.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-22-2013, 07:59 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Here is peacegirl, who won't read Stewart's book, yet feels herself competent to say that what Stewart wrote does not represent the same idea that Lessans was trying to get across, when it does.
And yet, of course, by taking this tack, she shuns an ally on at least this one claim made by Lessans, after ten years of total rejection on the Internet. It's breathtaking.
Why don't you e-mail chapter 10 to Stewart, peacegirl?
|
07-22-2013, 08:00 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's not it. I like intermissions because it gives everyone a break from this tiring conversation. I like to share videos that I like.
|
there are threads for videos that are not on topic, otherwise you are trying to distract others from the mistakes you are making.
|
Who do you think you are, Mr. Big Stuff?
|
At least I can ignore the nonsense.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-22-2013, 08:03 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
And if you dare call me another name David, you're going on ignore, not pretend ignore either.
|
Damn, I forget how to do "consternation waves." Can anyone remind me?
|
07-22-2013, 08:03 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
When I need a break I jump over to the next tab and post completely irrelevant music videos on FB for my friends.
|
That's cool! I compare this thread to a broadway show (long and drawn out) where intermission gives everyone a chance to regroup, go to the bathroom, get a drink, make a phone call, or what have you. It's a refreshing break.
|
07-22-2013, 08:04 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing dog
I think the forbidding people to do anything that might be viewed "hurtful" towards others is very naive. Pretty soon, some people would game the system. For example, suppose seeing person X earning income is hurtful to me. What happens? Or suppose it is hurtful to me that someone else is getting less pay than I think is right?
|
Would you like to read the chapter on economics? PM me.
|
Thedoc, that's not the way. He needs to read the first three chapters. You're ruining it for this guy, don't you understand?
|
Again, you are not the boss, you don't get to tell people what to do or how to do it.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-22-2013, 08:07 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I compare this thread to a broadway show (long and drawn out) where intermission gives everyone a chance to regroup, go to the bathroom, get a drink, make a phone call, or what have you. It's a refreshing break.
|
Yeah, except for the part where this is the internet so in between posts we get to go to the bathroom or make calls if we're so inclined. Maybe you're glued to your seat hitting refresh over and over between posts but I'm pretty sure that the rest of us aren't. It's not a theater or your living room. (And this is coming from the queen of derails.)
|
07-22-2013, 08:17 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
And for the record, peacegirl, you didn't miscalculate the speed of light. You claimed that scientists had. And you offered this as an "explanation" for why there's no delay between seeing a supernova and photographing it.
This was back when you were claiming that cameras and eyes see differently. A claim you later denied you had made, until your own words were quoted back to you.
|
This entire discussion is not my expertise, and you know it. This has nothing to do with the soundness of his observations. I was being pressured to come up with an answer, and it made me look like a weasel. Now it's much more clear to me why a photograph would be the same as what we see with the naked eye. Vivisectus said it's because light travels at a certain speed and strikes the eye and camera at the same exact time. That's the afferent account. The efferent account is that the object must be in the field of view, whether it's the eye or a camera. That would put the light at the film instantly, just like the retina. It would be no different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
This is in direct contradiction to your recent claim that you don't question the relevant science.
|
I don't question the relevant science when it comes to the basics. I do question whether it offers a complete understanding of what's going on with the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
And yes, when I explained why neurons can only conduct impulses from dendrites to axons, and not the other way -- and that the human optic nerve contains no efferent neurons -- you most-definitely did say that you thought that this means that we don't understand how neurons actually function and/or that we don't know enough about the anatomy of the eye to make that claim. As if the laws of chemistry don't apply to neurons. As if the eye contains some (presumably invisible), yet-to-be-discovered macroscopic structures.
|
Here again I am not arguing that scientists know the difference between an afferent and efferent neuron, but this in itself does not prove that impulses are decoded into images that allow for normal vision. I'm not convinced. You may think I am trying to weasel again, but I'm really not. I just believe there is something to Lessans' claim and I won't give up. The brain and eyes are one entity, therefore the structure of neurons might not even play a part in the direction the brain sees.
|
The Brain and the Eye are physically seperate but connected by the optic nerve, the eyes are not located in the brain. If you dismiss the physiological structure of the brain/eye system, that leaves you with a spiritual connection, and this leads back to previous observations that your beliefs in Lessans book are just like a religious belief. Unless you can provide a physiological explination, your have only a religious belief. Science has made extensive observations of the Brain/Eye system and have observed signals from the eye to the brain that corrospond to images in the brain resulting from impulses from the eye, that are triggered by light striking the retina. Conclusive proof of the afferent vision theory.
|
Eyes are the visual organs that have the retina, a specialized type of brain tissue.
Eye movement (sensory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
|
07-22-2013, 08:18 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
|
07-22-2013, 08:42 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
And for the record, peacegirl, you didn't miscalculate the speed of light. You claimed that scientists had. And you offered this as an "explanation" for why there's no delay between seeing a supernova and photographing it.
This was back when you were claiming that cameras and eyes see differently. A claim you later denied you had made, until your own words were quoted back to you.
This is in direct contradiction to your recent claim that you don't question the relevant science.
And yes, when I explained why neurons can only conduct impulses from dendrites to axons, and not the other way -- and that the human optic nerve contains no efferent neurons -- you most-definitely did say that you thought that this means that we don't understand how neurons actually function and/or that we don't know enough about the anatomy of the eye to make that claim. As if the laws of chemistry don't apply to neurons. As if the eye contains some (presumably invisible), yet-to-be-discovered macroscopic structures.
|
No, that's not what I mean. These are structures that are understood, and I'm not arguing with this. But in defense of Lessans, there is still a lot about the brain that we have yet to understand. Are you telling me that science knows all there is to know about the brain?
|
Ah, the God of the Gaps!
"There are things we do not know everything about yet. Therefor God exists!"
Peacegirl, we do not know everything about physics yet either. Maybe one of the things we are yet to learn is an explanation for why wings are not a cause for flight in birds!
|
You can make these ridiculous comparisons forever; it doesn't change the fact that Lessans' observations were sound.
|
But you just got through admitting to the Lone Ranger that you didn't know what you were talking about on the quoted material, and that you made shit up in a desperate effort to make Lessans seem credible. Have you already forgotten this amazing admission? If you admit you made stuff up to support Lessans, it logically follows that you admit Lessans was wrong.
|
07-22-2013, 08:44 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
And if you dare call me another name David, you're going on ignore, not pretend ignore either.
|
|
07-22-2013, 09:21 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I compare this thread to a broadway show (long and drawn out) where intermission gives everyone a chance to regroup, go to the bathroom, get a drink, make a phone call, or what have you. It's a refreshing break.
|
Yeah, except for the part where this is the internet so in between posts we get to go to the bathroom or make calls if we're so inclined. Maybe you're glued to your seat hitting refresh over and over between posts but I'm pretty sure that the rest of us aren't. It's not a theater or your living room. (And this is coming from the queen of derails.)
|
You don't know how big Peacegirls screen is, it could well be a giant screen with surround sound. The keyboard could also be big and colorful to keep her amused, with pictures of animals corrosponding to each letter.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-22-2013, 09:25 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
|
LOL did you read the article? It completely disproves Lessans claims.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-22-2013, 09:28 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Intermission: Please support pitbull rescue.
|
I would rather rescue a 'Nanny Dog'.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-22-2013, 09:32 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
And if you dare call me another name David, you're going on ignore, not pretend ignore either.
|
|
Congratulations!
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-22-2013, 09:42 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
And for the record, peacegirl, you didn't miscalculate the speed of light. You claimed that scientists had. And you offered this as an "explanation" for why there's no delay between seeing a supernova and photographing it.
This was back when you were claiming that cameras and eyes see differently. A claim you later denied you had made, until your own words were quoted back to you.
This is in direct contradiction to your recent claim that you don't question the relevant science.
And yes, when I explained why neurons can only conduct impulses from dendrites to axons, and not the other way -- and that the human optic nerve contains no efferent neurons -- you most-definitely did say that you thought that this means that we don't understand how neurons actually function and/or that we don't know enough about the anatomy of the eye to make that claim. As if the laws of chemistry don't apply to neurons. As if the eye contains some (presumably invisible), yet-to-be-discovered macroscopic structures.
|
No, that's not what I mean. These are structures that are understood, and I'm not arguing with this. But in defense of Lessans, there is still a lot about the brain that we have yet to understand. Are you telling me that science knows all there is to know about the brain?
|
Ah, the God of the Gaps!
"There are things we do not know everything about yet. Therefor God exists!"
Peacegirl, we do not know everything about physics yet either. Maybe one of the things we are yet to learn is an explanation for why wings are not a cause for flight in birds!
|
You can make these ridiculous comparisons forever; it doesn't change the fact that Lessans' observations were sound.
|
But you just got through admitting to the Lone Ranger that you didn't know what you were talking about on the quoted material, and that you made shit up in a desperate effort to make Lessans seem credible. Have you already forgotten this amazing admission? If you admit you made stuff up to support Lessans, it logically follows that you admit Lessans was wrong.
|
No David, there is no admission. Can't you get it through your head that he did not come to these findings in this manner, therefore it was difficult for me to figure out how to answer all of these questions from a physics point of view, but that does not mean he was wrong. And why don't you admit to everyone that this dislike for Lessans is due to the fact that your comfort zone has been turned upside down since it contradicts your belief system and you are having major cognitive/dissonance, otherwise, you wouldn't act like this.
|
07-22-2013, 09:49 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing dog
I think the forbidding people to do anything that might be viewed "hurtful" towards others is very naive. Pretty soon, some people would game the system. For example, suppose seeing person X earning income is hurtful to me. What happens? Or suppose it is hurtful to me that someone else is getting less pay than I think is right?
|
Would you like to read the chapter on economics? PM me.
|
Thedoc, that's not the way. He needs to read the first three chapters. You're ruining it for this guy, don't you understand?
|
Again, you are not the boss, you don't get to tell people what to do or how to do it.
|
No I'm not the boss thedoc, and I never claimed to be. It's common courtesy if I ask you politely not to do something for the benefit of this conversation. I was the one who put the .pdf online to begin with, and if I hadn't you would have nothing to offer. You are ungrateful.
|
07-22-2013, 09:52 PM
|
|
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
What conversation?
You yourself have admitted that you aren't here to discuss, but to preach.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.” -- Socrates
|
07-22-2013, 09:52 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Here is peacegirl, who won't read Stewart's book, yet feels herself competent to say that what Stewart wrote does not represent the same idea that Lessans was trying to get across, when it does.
And yet, of course, by taking this tack, she shuns an ally on at least this one claim made by Lessans, after ten years of total rejection on the Internet. It's breathtaking.
Why don't you e-mail chapter 10 to Stewart, peacegirl?
|
Rejection? I never talked about his chapter on death. I am reading what you both are discussing and it doesn't sound similar. If he wants to know more, he can speak for himself. Why are you speaking for him?
|
07-22-2013, 09:54 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
What conversation?
You yourself have admitted that you aren't here to discuss, but to preach.
|
So you teach, and I preach! Seriously, the only reason you call this preaching is because you're not getting your way, for if I agreed with you, you would then say it's a conversation.
|
07-22-2013, 09:57 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No I'm not the boss thedoc, and I never claimed to be. It's common courtesy if I ask you politely not to do something for the benefit of this conversation. I was the one who put the .pdf online to begin with, and if I hadn't you would have nothing to offer. You are ungrateful.
|
Common courtesy is something you could put into practice.
You are wrong, I am very grateful, the PDF has been a great source of amusement.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-22-2013, 09:58 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I compare this thread to a broadway show (long and drawn out) where intermission gives everyone a chance to regroup, go to the bathroom, get a drink, make a phone call, or what have you. It's a refreshing break.
|
Yeah, except for the part where this is the internet so in between posts we get to go to the bathroom or make calls if we're so inclined. Maybe you're glued to your seat hitting refresh over and over between posts but I'm pretty sure that the rest of us aren't. It's not a theater or your living room. (And this is coming from the queen of derails.)
|
True, but after two years of doing this, it adds some variety. I don't try to distract; I get right back to the discussion. In fact, I usually I offer something at intermission when I'm going to take a break. That's why I call it intermission.
|
07-22-2013, 10:00 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No I'm not the boss thedoc, and I never claimed to be. It's common courtesy if I ask you politely not to do something for the benefit of this conversation. I was the one who put the .pdf online to begin with, and if I hadn't you would have nothing to offer. You are ungrateful.
|
Common courtesy is something you could put into practice.
You are wrong, I am very grateful, the PDF has been a great source of amusement.
|
I wish I could take it back and smack you at the same time. You've done a disservice to Lessans.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 38 (0 members and 38 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 AM.
|
|
|
|