A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

[ChristinaM]

When I need a break I jump over to the next tab and post completely irrelevant music videos on FB for my friends.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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.

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.

[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?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who do you think you are, Mr. Big Stuff?

At least I can ignore the nonsense.

[davidm]

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?

[peacegirl]

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[ChristinaM]

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.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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)

[peacegirl]

Intermission: Please support pitbull rescue.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=3&theater

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And if you dare call me another name David, you're going on ignore, not pretend ignore either.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Eyes are the visual organs that have the retina, a specialized type of brain tissue.

Eye movement (sensory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

LOL did you read the article? It completely disproves Lessans claims.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Intermission: Please support pitbull rescue.

I would rather rescue a 'Nanny Dog'.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Congratulations!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

[The Lone Ranger]

What conversation?

You yourself have admitted that you aren't here to discuss, but to preach.

[peacegirl]

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?

[peacegirl]

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.

[thedoc]

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.