A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even if the eyes are efferent, according to the laws of physics and direct empirical observation and over a century of practical use, camera film and sensors require a localized physical interaction with light photons to create an image, and light cannot be located on camera film without having traveled there.

Every time you say the light is at the camera film without having traveled there, you are offering a scenario where the laws of physics are broken.

You don't understand why film would work the same way as retinas. I understand localization, but when it comes to light, photons do not have to arrive in order to photograph ACTUAL MATTER. You will never grasp this concept because you keep thinking in terms of distance and travel time which IS THE AFFERENT MODEL OF PHOTOGRAPHY AND VISION.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LadyShea, I would respectfully suggest that the above is what happens after too much time responding to a lunatic. One starts down the slippery slope of "for the sake of argument…"

The eyes are NOT efferent, as was proved three years ago in this very thread by the Lone Ranger in his splendid essay on light and sight, which Meathead admitted that she did not read, and specifically said she would NOT read.

But it's worse than that.

Lessans and Meathead have hijacked the very meaning of "efferent" sight. Efferent means "signals going out." Everyone knows (except for Meathead) that there are no efferent nerves in the optic system.

There don't have to be.

Originally Posted by davidm}But if there were, this would mean NOTHING like what Lessans and Meathead are arguing for. The old idea about efferent sight was that the eyes somehow gave off their own light.[/quote]

He clearly explained how the brain works in relation to words. It's hysterical to think that the eyes give off their own light.

It is demonstrated that because we never understood a projecting function of the brain

[quote="davdim

A pretty dumb idea, because even when people proposed it, they should have noticed that the eyes did not behave like flashlights at night, as would have been expected under efferent seeing. The point, though, is that the "models" proposed by Blockhead (Lessans) and Meathead (peacegirl) also have nothing to do with efferent seeing. The two bozos have simply hijacked a term, the meaning of which is opaque to them.

No, not at all. There is no other term to describe what he was talking about. It is a looking out instead of receiving in. There can be many different meanings to a word.

Originally Posted by davidm

I reiterate my suggestion that people simply stop responding to peacegirl and cut off the attention-cocaine that she seeks. You all are going over, yet again, the exact same stuff, in almost the exact same words, that was discussed three years ago. Why?

They can't leave me. You can't either!

i think i love you- david cassidy - YouTube

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I am.

Liar. You haven't gone anywhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no change I truthfully cannot keep repeating the same thing which you believe is lacking in proof.

So stop doing that and start honestly answering our questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's just too hard for me.

Oh you poor, poor victim! Lying and weaseling must really take it out of you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm used to the criticism from every forum I've ever been to (which means nothing when someone has a genuine discovery).

You're not only used to it, you're addicted to it. And unanswered criticism is what shows that you do not have a genuine discovery.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

May the best man win! It's not over until the fat lady sings.

So what was this then?:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot keep doing this in order defend myself... I can't keep defending him... I am done with this thread.

Just more dishonest drama queen horseshit?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not true.

Absolutely true. He thought light consisted of clouds of molecules floating around objects making them visible. You know this because you edited those words out after realizing they revealed him to be an ignorant buffoon.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will continue to support his claim and work from there.

So then you were lying when you claimed to be done with this thread. Anyway, here's were you can start:

A revolution in thought - Page 1445 - Freethought Forum
A revolution in thought - Page 1456 - Freethought Forum

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If something doesn't fit, it does not automatically mean that he was wrong.

When objections cannot be answered without contradiction or violations of physics, then yes, this does prove him wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything has to be reexamined in view of this new model.

So start reexamining. I've shown you were to start.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now if you can't prove me wrong, I will stick to my version of reality and you can stick to yours.

But I have proven you wrong, in the two posts you have been evading all week.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand localization, but when it comes to light, photons do not have to arrive in order to photograph ACTUAL MATTER.

There you go talking utter nonsense once again. Photons have to be in contact with the film or retina, and they cannot be there without either coming into existence there or arriving there from somewhere else. Yet you reject both options, thereby refuting your own claims.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no other term to describe what he was talking about. It is a looking out instead of receiving in.

'Looking out' isn't any kind of explanatory mechanism. The term is just a synonym for vision - the very thing that an account would have to explain. Everyone agrees that we 'look out' through our eyes. The question is how this is achieved. Afferent accounts explain it in terms of receiving something inwards. Efferent accounts attempt to explain it in terms of sending something outwards. Your non-account is neither, and doesn't even qualify as an explanation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by 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.)

Bump.

[davidm]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Liar. You haven't gone anywhere.

Are you disappointed?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no change I truthfully cannot keep repeating the same thing which you believe is lacking in proof.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So stop doing that and start honestly answering our questions.

But it's you that's doing that. You are trying to get me to fit a circle into a square and when I can't do it, you say I'm being dishonest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's just too hard for me.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Oh you poor, poor victim! Lying and weaseling must really take it out of you.

It's hard for me to keep repeating that your questions regarding photons don't address the efferent model at all. That's why I cannot answer them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm used to the criticism from every forum I've ever been to (which means nothing when someone has a genuine discovery).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're not only used to it, you're addicted to it. And unanswered criticism is what shows that you do not have a genuine discovery.

Unanswered criticism does not show that I don't have a genuine discovery. All I have to do is explain his findings regarding what he perceived the brain and eyes to be doing. For you to rule this claim out just because the model doesn't make sense to you in terms of locality does not mean he was wrong or that it violates physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Get me out of this place.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

'Looking out' isn't any kind of explanatory mechanism. The term is just a synonym for vision - the very thing that an account would have to explain. Everyone agrees that we 'look out' through our eyes. The question is how this is achieved. Afferent accounts explain it in terms of receiving something inwards. Efferent accounts attempt to explain it in terms of sending something outwards. Your non-account is neither, and doesn't even qualify as an explanation.

That wasn't the explanation. If you read the book you would have known that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Absolutely true. He thought light consisted of clouds of molecules floating around objects making them visible. You know this because you edited those words out after realizing they revealed him to be an ignorant buffoon.

Sorry but you are going to have to edit this post for me to go any further. You will not call him this disgusting name and expect me to answer you. Are you off your rocker?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to get me to fit a circle into a square and when I can't do it, you say I'm being dishonest.

You have it backwards. The phrase you looking for is "you can't fit a square peg into round hole". Fitting a round peg into a square hole is relatively easy. Take a hole that is one inch square and put in a round peg that is one inch in diameter and you will see that it fits quite nicely. Try putting a peg which is one inch square into a circular hole that is one inch in diameter and it won't fit, not without trimming the corners of the peg so that it is no longer square.

Efferent vision is a square peg that won't fit into the round hole of physical laws. Your attempts to make it fit amount to nothing more than trying to shave off the corners of the peg to make if fit. It is not working. The peg is no longer square and it still doesn't fit. Try shaving a little more off. Trim off enough and you will end up with a round peg that fits, but it will no longer be efferent vision. It will, in fact, end up being afferent vision because that is the only thing that fits securely.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you disappointed?

I can't be disappointed by something so thoroughly predictable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it's you that's doing that. You are trying to get me to fit a circle into a square and when I can't do it, you say I'm being dishonest.

You are being dishonest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's hard for me to keep repeating that your questions regarding photons don't address the efferent model at all. That's why I cannot answer them.

Another lie. Your efferent model requires light to be at the film/retina. I am addressing that model by asking how they could have come to be there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unanswered criticism does not show that I don't have a genuine discovery.

Of course it does.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That wasn't the explanation. If you read the book you would have known that.

You don't have an explanation. You have no idea how efferent vision could possibly work. Everyone who has read the thread knows this, including you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry but you are going to have to edit this post for me to go any further. You will not call him this disgusting name and expect me to answer you. Are you off your rocker?

No, I won't edit it. The words are perfectly accurate, and you refuse to answer my questions anyway, no matter what I say. So why should pay any attention to this absurd demand?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand localization, but when it comes to light, photons do not have to arrive in order to photograph ACTUAL MATTER.

That's not how cameras work

Are you suggesting that cameras have mysterious mechanisms by which they work that we are unaware of...seeing as how humans designed and build them, that seems a ridiculous notion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not conceding that the eyes are efferent, obviously,

Why obviously, unless you are trying to go along with your cronies? Par for the course.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

but I am showing her the corner she painted herself into. She can't retreat to "the brain looking through the eyes" with brainless cameras, and she can't backpedal to "eyes and cameras work the same way" without dismissing the necessity of the brain in seeing...which in turn would dismiss Lessans whole idea.

Not true whatsoever. This knowledge about the brain looking out through the eyes gives us information about how cameras work. We could not figure this out without the understanding regarding the brain and eyes. So what LadyShea? Where is this backpeddling? If anything it is applying useful information. You are very confused, more than I originally thought only because you are trying to be right when you're not.

Originally Posted by davidm

You all are going over, yet again, the exact same stuff, in almost the exact same words, that was discussed three years ago. Why?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I pick up an argument I rarely ever drop it until my mind is changed or the other person's is, or unless a more entertaining debate comes along

Sounds like OCD to me. I would just go my merry way as there are many discussions that don't interest me even if the conclusion is not resolved. That being said, I can relate to you if the conversation may, in my mind, have some possible merit. I think that's what you were trying to get across.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

People disagree with Lessans because he is wrong and the things he wrote don't make sense. They are not "taken aback" because Lessans doesn't fit some mold. This is just one of the lies that you tell yourself so that you can justify to yourself your continuing defense of his nonsense.

This is another one of the lies that you tell yourself in an effort to justify your obsessive and delusional behavior in defense of Lessans nonsense.

And I should believe YOU when you could not understand that two choices that are both desirable does not in any way disproves Lessans' claim? You are so confused and off the beaten track, I have no desire discussing anything with you. As a minister, I am amazed at how belittling you can get. That just shows me that you are just a person, no better or worse, who has flaws just like anyone else.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

People are here for a variety of reasons, none of which is a secret belief that Lessans just might be right.

How do you know Mr. Soothsayer? Are you God? God knows all the reasons for our actions. Are you telling me you are on par with The Almighty? Isn't that blasphemy?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You don't just lie to others. You lie to yourself. Those lies are the fuel that keeps you going. Without them you would have to face the fact that you have wasted both time and money in pursuit of a worthless and unobtainable goal.

You are boring me now with nothing substantial to say. You are in no position to judge me or my motives. La la la la la.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The eyes are not efferent. You are starting with a false premise. You cannot build a sound argument on a false premise.

Hmmm, exactly!!! Now go rethink this entire thread. Hopefully, it will take you a longggggggg time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You have it backwards. The phrase you looking for is "you can't fit a square peg into round hole". Fitting a round peg into a square hole is relatively easy. Take a hole that is one inch square and put in a round peg that is one inch in diameter and you will see that it fits quite nicely. Try putting a peg which is one inch square into a circular hole that is one inch in diameter and it won't fit, not without trimming the corners of the peg so that it is no longer square.

Thank you for your explanation, but as a minister you should have gotten the point and not pushed the issue knowing that the point was made, not necessarily the accuracy of the comment. You do that alot. You look for trivial mistakes to try to discredit the bigger claim. You are so far removed from following God's word, it amazes me that you have a flock of your own.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Efferent vision is a square peg that won't fit into the round hole of physical laws. Your attempts to make it fit amount to nothing more than trying to shave off the corners of the peg to make if fit. It is not working. The peg is no longer square and it still doesn't fit. Try shaving a little more off. Trim off enough and you will end up with a round peg that fits, but it will no longer be efferent vision. It will, in fact, end up being afferent vision because that is the only thing that fits securely.

Ironically, if I asked you what brought Lessans to these conclusions, you wouldn't even be able to explain it. Very very telling.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This knowledge about the brain looking out through the eyes gives us information about how cameras work.

Do tell. We know exactly how cameras work, and it has nothing to do with brains, eyes, or efferent vision.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.