A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Weasel. This below is the problem in a nutshell, which you cannot address and have been unable to for years. It makes you look either very stupid or very dishonest. Which do you prefer?

Originally Posted by davidm

Well, if the light is in contact with the sensor, and if it's in contact with the retina, then why -- according to Lessans! -- is it NOT in contact with the neighbor standing next to you, until eight and a half minutes after God turns on the goddamned sun? That is what Lessans wrote. He wrote that although we would see the sun instantly from earth if God turned it on at noon, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes, until the photons arrived from the sun!

Think, peacegirl, THINK, as they used to say at IBM! If, as you claim, the photons from the sun are instantly in contact with the sensor and the retina, how can they not also be instantly in contact with the flesh of the person aiming the camera? But that is what Lessans wrote: that it would take eight and a half minutes for the photons to reach the flesh and make the neighbor visible!

The problem you have is that Lessans did not say that the photons were in contact with the retina when God turned on the sun; he said they were still at the sun! This is the naked absurdity of his claim -- that we would see the photons while they were still at the sun and not at our eyes, from our standpoint on earth. But he admitted that the photons would still take eight and a half minutes to reach the earth. He said that we would not be able to see our neighbor until the photons arrived -- and if the photons aren't striking the neighbor, they sure as shit aren't striking the camera that the neighbor is holding! This is just plain logic.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still assuming that light must travel to Earth in order for it to strike the retina

Because that is what must happen according to physics. Light cannot "strike" something without getting to the location of whatever it is striking. Nothing can strike anything else unless the two things are in physical contact, meaning they came to the same physical location by some physical mechanism.

If light is striking the retina (you say it is, Lessans didn't say either way) then the light came to be at the retina somehow, if it didn't travel, then how did it get there?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

a raving lunatic and a great big horse's ass

The custom user title hits just keep on coming.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I weaseled at times because I was being given questions that I needed time to figure out.

Why do you speak of your weaseling in the past tense? You're still doing it right now. It's not time you need - you've had YEARS already to work out this photons thing. What you need is some basic honesty and integrity, and a willingness to face up to reality.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That wasn't my aim here. I was just pointing out the fact that cameras, showing the same image as the eyes, do not rule out real time seeing since the photons that would show up on the retina would also show up on film using the same principle.

It rules out real-time seeing because you cannot explain in either case - for cameras or for vision - how the photons at the film/retina get to be there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying the same thing Spacemonkey.

Yes, I keep asking the same questions because you keep weaseling and refusing to answer them. Why can't you honestly and directly answer questions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, there is no teleporting of photons in this model.

I didn't say there was. This isn't an answer to anything I asked. Why are you weaseling?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still assuming that light must travel to Earth in order for it to strike the retina...

No, I am most certainly not. I just asked you how the photons get to be at the retina without having traveled or teleported there. Why have you not answered?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...so if no time is involved then how did the photons get there?

That's the question you need to answer. How did the photons get there? Where did they come from? Did they come from the Sun, or did they come into existence at the film/retina?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to you, they had to teleport.

Bullshit. I'm asking you how they get to be there without teleporting. I'm still waiting for an answer. One way of getting from A to B is by traveling and taking time. Another way is by teleporting instantaneously. The only other options are to deny that the photons got from A to B, and instead say that the photons either came into existence at B or were always at B. Do you see any further options?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am talking about a completely different concept that does not violate physics because there is no time involved in the efferent model.

You violate physics and logic by having light somewhere without being able to explain how it gets there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light that is at the retina or film in this model...

How does it get there?

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not an error to give credence to astute observation.

Correct, but once again you are confusing observations with ruminations. As for the latter, they are testable by empirical observations. That is something you don't seem to allow.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason this thread got off to a bad start is because I felt threatened.

The reason this thread got off to a bad start is because you replied to an entirely unobjectionable comment with a personal insult. LadyShea had noticed your modus operandi. In other forums you played the Mysterious Prophetess, and that is what she pointed out. You could have either acknowledged that, or you could have disputed that this is what you have done, and given reasons for why you think she was wrong, but you chose to call her "a very bitter individual" instead.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hermit, did you read the first chapter?

Actually, I have. Additionally I have read a lot more than that. You have generously quoted thousands upon thousands of words of your dad's output in this thread. To me those excerpts might seem like they are words of wisdom. To me they are a sea of unadulterated rubbish. They are riddled with untested hypotheses, untestable metaphysical assertions, random non-sequiturs and outright contradictions. I have neither the need nor the desire to read more of this mound of garbage. Three years ago I downloaded the entire text you had made available and deleted it two months later. It is not worth the storage space it occupied, no matter how cheap hard discs are these days, nor how little of it requires, and it certainly is not worth my time reading beyond the point I have spent on it. Now I'm here merely as an amused anthropologist for want of a better term.

[Spacemonkey]

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel. This below is the problem in a nutshell, which you cannot address and have been unable to for years. It makes you look either very stupid or very dishonest. Which do you prefer?

I can't address this issue to your exact specifications, but once again this does not make Lessans' claims impossible which Davidm and Spacemonkey believe. People have to examine what it means for the brain to use the eyes to see the real world. No one is doing that and because I can't satisfy the demands to prove this, they think this is goofy. Well guess what, the conclusions that have determined the eyes are afferent are not absolute proof either. This is not goofy at all, and one day it will be given the respect it deserves, even if it is just to test for its validity. Lone Ranger says it's already been tested. I don't agree. This is not a slam dunk.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't address to your specifications, but once again this does not make Lessans' claims impossible which Davidm and Spacemonkey believe. People have to examine what it means for the brain to use the eyes to see the real world. No one is doing that and because I can't satisfy their demands, they think this is goofy. It is not goofy at all, and one day it will be tested to determine its validity.

You're weaseling again.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People have to examine what it means for the brain to use the eyes to see the real world.

The examination of this idea almost immediately leads to the very logical question "What about photography where there is no brain?" which is what you are having is much trouble reconciling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not an error to give credence to astute observation.

Originally Posted by Hermit

Correct, but once again you are confusing observations with ruminations. As for the latter, they are testable by empirical observations. That is something you don't seem to allow.

It's not a matter of not allowing testing. It's a matter of setting up the conditions that allow for this. Just because it is difficult to set these conditions up does not mean his observations were wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason this thread got off to a bad start is because I felt threatened.

Originally Posted by Hermit

The reason this thread got off to a bad start is because you replied to an entirely unobjectionable comment with a personal insult. LadyShea had noticed your modus operandi. In other forums you played the Mysterious Prophetess, and that is what she pointed out. You could have either acknowledged that, or you could have disputed that this is what you have done, and given reasons for why you think she was wrong, but you chose to call her "a very bitter individual" instead.

I guess I messed up big time, but that still doesn't prove that the claims are wrong. People are getting off on the wrong track due to my responses. I could have done a lot of things, but I didn't. I was too threatened that people were going to think this discovery was a joke, which they did. I didn't have empirical proof so this thread was doomed if I didn't show people that empirical testing is not the only way to come to a truth. It is not fair to my father to judge him this way based on my actions. Do you not get that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hermit, did you read the first chapter?

Originally Posted by Hermit

Actually, I have. Additionally I have read a lot more than that. You have generously quoted thousands upon thousands of words of your dad's output in this thread. To me those excerpts might seem like they are words of wisdom. To me they are a sea of unadulterated rubbish.

You are not being fair. First of all, I don't believe you read the first chapter. What is it about? This thread has gotten so convoluted I don't think you know. That's why you think it's rubbish. I'm not surprised.

Originally Posted by Hermit

They are riddled with untested hypotheses, untestable metaphysical assertions, random non-sequiturs and outright contradictions.

I am trying to work with you. Are you going to work with me or not? You accuse Lessans of things he didn't do. Where is there a not-sequitur. Be specific Hermit. And where is the outright contradictions. Be specific. You are not specifying which makes me suspicious of what you actually know.

Originally Posted by Hermit

I have neither the need nor the desire to read more of this mound of garbage. Three years ago I downloaded the entire text you had made available and deleted it two months later. It is not worth the storage space it occupied, no matter how cheap hard discs are these days, nor how little of it requires, and it certainly is not worth my time reading beyond the point I have spent on it. Now I'm here merely as an amused anthropologist for want of a better term.

This is what I have had to deal with all along. You have not done your due diligence yet you want me to concede. This is unfair. Either read the first 58 pages, or don't engage with me. I don't care if you are an anthropologist. Why are you throwing that in? It has no bearing on what we are discussing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The examination of this idea almost immediately leads to the very logical question "What about photography where there is no brain?" which is what you are having is much trouble reconciling.

Where have you been LadyShea? Have you been taking a nap? I am shocked by your question at this point in our conversation. Scroll back and read what I have written even in the last couple of days. You'll get your answers. I refuse to spoon feed this to you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People have to examine what it means for the brain to use the eyes to see the real world. No one is doing that and because I can't satisfy the demands to prove this. Well guess what, the conclusions that have determined the eyes are afferent are not absolute proof either.

The problem here is Lessans use of the phrase "The Brain looks out through the eyes." to describe his concept of vision, as if the Brain is projecting "something" out through the eyes to the object instantly. When a person looks through a window, they perceive the light reflected from an object outside passing through the window into their eyes to the retina, there is nothing projected out from the eyes. Even Lessans ramblings about words being projected is a misunderstanding of a basic psychological process that is understood and has been described as an internal process. Lessans mistakenly thought is was some kind of external projection. And likewise he assumed that to see an object the Brain had to project something out in order to see an object, but he never specified what that "something" was. The speed of light is simply beyond most peoples ability to conceptualize, especially at normal distances for human interaction, and it appears to be instantaneous. This is apparently what has confused Lessans because he could detect no delay, he assumed that vision was "in real time, not delayed".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you speak of your weaseling in the past tense? You're still doing it right now. It's not time you need - you've had YEARS already to work out this photons thing. What you need is some basic honesty and integrity, and a willingness to face up to reality.

I am being honest Spacemonkey. And what will happen when Lessans is vindicated. I asked The Lone Ranger this and he didn't even respect me enough to answer.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a matter of not allowing testing. It's a matter of setting up the conditions that allow for this. Just because it is difficult to set these conditions up does not mean his observations were wrong.

Setting up the right conditions is easy and quite uncomplicated. All you have to do is to formulate a testable hypothesis, then test it through empirical observations that are designed to either support or refute it. Speaking of observations, please stop confusing your dad's ruminations with them already.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is there a not-sequitur. Be specific Hermit. And where is the outright contradictions. Be specific. You are not specifying which makes me suspicious of what you actually know.

I have already pointed them out in this very thread. What a nerve you have expecting me to quote chapter and verse from the chapter I did read, (Thanks for calling me a liar, by the way. You are being true to form.) as well as the almost 12,000 posts you have submitted, while you can't even be bothered to remember or reread what I said in my 57 previous contributions. Then you accuse me of not doing my due diligence? WTF? Your arrogance and hypocrisy is exceeded in scale only by the stench of your dad's rubbish that you have the temerity of praising. Whoever pulls the plug on your internet connection will make an infinitesimally small, yet definitely positive improvement to this forum and any other that you are currently inflicting your dad's shit upon.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you speak of your weaseling in the past tense? You're still doing it right now. It's not time you need - you've had YEARS already to work out this photons thing. What you need is some basic honesty and integrity, and a willingness to face up to reality.

I am being honest Spacemonkey. And what will happen when Lessans is vindicated. I asked The Lone Ranger which he conveniently ignored.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And what will happen when Lessans is vindicated.

How long will it take you to realize that Lessans will never be vindicated? 1 year, 5 years, 20 years, will you still be peddling the same nonsense then?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Hermit

Setting up the right conditions is easy and quite uncomplicated. All you have to do is to formulate a testable hypothesis, then test it through empirical observations that are designed to either support or refute it. Speaking of observations, please stop confusing your dad's ruminations with them already.

They are not ruminations. You can continue to downplay his observations, but that will only delay the inevitable which is moving us toward the Golden Age. This has been taken out of our hands.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is there a not-sequitur. Be specific Hermit. And where is the outright contradictions. Be specific. You are not specifying which makes me suspicious of what you actually know.

Originally Posted by Hermit

I have already pointed them out in this very thread. What a nerve you have expecting me to quote chapter and verse from the chapter I did read, (Thanks for calling me a liar, by the way. You are being true to form.) as well as the almost 12,000 posts you have submitted, while you can't even be bothered to remember or reread what I said in my 57 previous contributions. Then you accuse me of not doing my due diligence? WTF? Your arrogance and hypocrisy is exceeded in scale only by the stench of your dad's rubbish that you have the temerity of praising. Whoever pulls the plug on your internet connection will make an infinitesimally small, yet definitely positive improvement to this forum and any other that you are currently inflicting your dad's shit upon.

I asked you if you read the first chapter? Do you even know why man's will is not free, according to his observations? That's a fair question. You are now becoming belligerent for no reason at all. You have not contributed anything worthwhile or I would have continued the conversation with you. Now you are calling this work "shit"? I will never tolerate your disrespect. You can't even explain the first chapter. Talk about ignorant. What a #*$(#@ joke!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Hermit

I have already pointed them out in this very thread. What a nerve you have expecting me to quote chapter and verse from the chapter I did read, (Thanks for calling me a liar, by the way. You are being true to form.) as well as the almost 12,000 posts you have submitted, while you can't even be bothered to remember or reread what I said in my 57 previous contributions. Then you accuse me of not doing my due diligence? WTF?

This is one of Peacegirl's favorite ploys, ask for specific criticisms to be repeated, ignoring them and asking for them to be repeated again. She believes it makes her look like a Martyr, when it really just makes her look like a 'willfully ignorant fool'.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am being honest Spacemonkey.

That would be a welcome change.

And what will happen when Lessans is vindicated. I asked The Lone Ranger which he conveniently ignored.

If Lessans is "vindicated," then a lot of people will be very surprised. After all, that would mean means that virtually everything we thought we understood about neural function, visual anatomy, optics, General Relativity, Special Relativity, astronomy, and even causality itself is flat-out wrong.

And yet, in all this time, you have yet to provide even one piece of evidence in favor of Lessans' claims other than your and his say-so. Claiming that he made "astute observations" does not constitute evidence -- particularly when you cannot even say what those "astute observations" were, much less when they were conducted and under what conditions.

In short, yours is an entirely faith-based belief system, as even you admit in your rare moments of semi-clarity.

***

But you know what? Despite your repeated lies to the contrary, if actual evidence were presented in favor of Lessans' claims, then scientists would be all over it. Here's a news flash for you: Scientists more or less literally live for the thrill of discovering something new. You claim that scientists are close-minded and ignoring Lessans' claims. That's pure and unadulterated bullshit, and you know it. If I could provide evidence that we see in "real time," then I would be guaranteed a Nobel Prize. I'd make millions from the book deals and lecture fees. Science babes with great big frontal lobes would throw their hotel room keys at me during these conferences.

It isn't the science community that's being close-minded here. On the other hand, somebody has been making claims that flat-out violate well-established scientific principles, ignoring mountains of evidence which disprove those claims, and then whining about how nobody will take her seriously, and has admitted to lying and weaseling when it suits her. Now, who could that be ... ?

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is one of Peacegirl's favorite ploys, ask for specific criticisms to be repeated, ignoring them and asking for them to be repeated again. She believes it makes her look like a Martyr, when it really just makes her look like a 'willfully ignorant fool'.

Gets a bit tedious, doesn't it? I've given up trying to engage Peacegirl in discussion quite some time ago. Now I'm just entertaining myself by ripping into her awful deportment.

Speaking of which, did you notice the frequency with which she threatens to ignore people? What a wannabe bully. Yet another disgusting trait. Or, rather, more cause for ridicule. Not only are her threats nothing to be even lightly apprehensive about, but Peacegirl invariably keeps coming back to the people she allegedly ignored for a little while and pisses in their general direction like an overexcited puppy lying on its back. As long as you don't try to approach her in order to give her a consoling rub you can be confident that her piss will not reach you, and only ends up wetting her self instead.

[The Lone Ranger]

I don't believe that anyone participating in the thread holds out any hope that it's even remotely possible to break through peacegirl's invincible wall of absolute faith combined with willful ignorance and outright dishonesty.

Still, lies and misrepresentations demand to be challenged.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're weaseling again.

I'm not weaseling at all. I'm trying to accommodate your questions, but this isn't even the way he came to his findings. I don't have to figure out how the photons got there to prove his case. You still don't get that if the object is instantly in view by meeting the requirements of efferent vision, then the photons are at the retina (this can only occur in the efferent account, not the afferent) which allow us to see the object in real time. If you don't think there is anything to this, why can't you let it go? You want me to be proven wrong in the worst way, and you keep saying that if I can't answer your question regarding photons, then I don't understand how it works, but as I said this is not how Lessans came to his conclusions regarding the eyes. I'm not going to continue this conversation for much longer. After 3 years of this, I know we're going to end up no better off than before.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I don't believe that anyone participating in the thread holds out any hope that it's even remotely possible to break through peacegirl's invincible wall of absolute faith combined with willful ignorance and outright dishonesty.

Still, lies and misrepresentations demand to be challenged.

I will ask you this question again since you didn't answer me the first time. What if it turns out that Lessans was right all along? What if this invincible wall of absolute faith turns out to be true, what then? This may not happen for another hundred years, but if it happened in our lifetime would you change your tune or would you continue to call me willfully ignorant?

[The Lone Ranger]

I did answer your question. Don't you pay attention? Or is this yet another example of you ignoring that which you don't like?


And by the way, as has also been pointed out to you: Even if it were to turn out that Lessans' claims were correct, that in no way makes them scientific. They're based entirely on faith, as even you admit. While it could conceivably turn out that they're correct, despite being based on pure faith, that's certainly not the way to bet. Especially since every single experiment which has tested those claims has provided evidence against them.