A revolution in thought

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is what makes this whole thread so very unfortunate, and why I won't do it again.

You mean, not of your own free will, pg?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You mean, not of your own free will, pg?

You're right. If I choose not to do this again, it is because when comparing to do this or not to do this, it gives me greater satisfaction not to do this. It won't benefit Lessans or anyone else. I have to reach someone famous (e.g. Echard Tolle, Marianne Williamson, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra) who will step back and at least consider the possibility that Lessans could be right, or else no one will take him seriously. This has become very problematic in these type forums, not because I wouldn't admit he was wrong if he was, but because people are using his obsevations against him before the verdict is in, and they refuse to read further or give his work a chance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yeah, the part about falling in love with other people's genitals would have been a lot more fun.

You're not going to get away with this davidm. You know you don't understand what he meant by that and you are purposely taking it out of context to ruin his reputation. But you can't do it. People are onto you. You are so peeved that you can't see straight, or think straight for that matter. You can't figure this one out and it bothers you so you attack the messenger. You are insecure when the very science that you depend on for stability is betraying you. I cannot believe that a person could rip a book apart the way you did, without reading it. It says a lot about you, not Lessans.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...when comparing to do this or not to do this, it gives me greater satisfaction not to do this.

Then surely, if that's true and your father's ideas were right, you would have stopped doing it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

the part about falling in love with other people's genitals would have been a lot more fun.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you don't understand what he meant by that and you are purposely taking it out of context to ruin his reputation

Yeah? Please explain the context of that passage, peacegirl, that makes it not equivalent to him saying "If the hot girl won't fuck you, find any girl who will and then fixate on her vagina".

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not going to get away with this davidm. You know you don't understand what he meant by that and you are purposely taking it out of context to ruin his reputation. But you can't do it. People are onto you. You are just pissed off because you can't figure this one out and it bothers you. You are insecure when the very science you depend on for stability is in question. I cannot believe that a person could rip a book apart the way you did, without reading it. It says a lot about you, not Lessans.

Hey, peacegirl, explain again how we see the sun instantaneously even though it's not possible to see it for eight and a half minutes.



Closing in on 200.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yeah? Please explain the context of that passage, peacegirl, that makes it not equivalent to him saying "If the hot girl won't fuck you, find any girl who will and then fixate on her vagina".

LadyShea, I'm a woman, are you kidding? Do you think I would accept something that was against women? This is a totally nonsensical. What more can I say LadyShea other than you absolutely misconstrued this comment because you did not read the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not going to get away with this davidm. You know you don't understand what he meant by that and you are purposely taking it out of context to ruin his reputation. But you can't do it. People are onto you. You are just pissed off because you can't figure this one out and it bothers you. You are insecure when the very science you depend on for stability is in question. I cannot believe that a person could rip a book apart the way you did, without reading it. It says a lot about you, not Lessans.

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, explain again how we see the sun instantaneously even though it's not possible to see it for eight and a half minutes.

I've explained it, but you can't stand it because your entire world falls apart. David, did you realize that your repetition means nothing? It explains nothing, and it does nothing to prove Lessans wrong? Why are you so afraid of the truth, if it turns out to be the truth. I have to repeat that this is definitely a problem with you, not Lessans.

Originally Posted by davidm

Closing in on 200.

What is your thing with p. 200? Do you win some kind of award? What are you trying to prove? Wildernesse played this game long before you. So what is the reason for you doing this? I don't get you davidm, please tell me what's going on in your mind?

[peacegirl]

In spite of the fact that davidm is trying so desperately to make it appear that there are absolutely no facts involved in this thread, I hope you, the reader, at the very least, hold back in your final judgment. That would allow you to read the book without any need to give your opinion until the book is read twice. That's all I'm asking. I'm also saying that no matter who I go to to market this book, if any money comes in, it will go to empirical proof.

I also want you all to wish my son good luck. He flew to Kentucky today from New York to take his final oral exam which will allow him to be a full fledged radiologist. He will then go to Emory Hospital to be the in-house radiologist in the trauma department for his fellowship, which will last one year. He is the first session of students to be tested, which means he was not given the opportunity to study the last week that others were lucky enough to be given. He believes he is ready, but there is always doubt until it's over. I asked him last night what are the ten subjects. I can't remember all of them but some are as follows: Interventional radiology, pediatric radiology, chest radiology, neurological radiology, GI radiology, UI radiology, mammography radiology, etc. He will spend approximately 25 minutes with each professor, and then he will move on to the next hotel room where each professor is waiting to test him on their specialty. I asked him to call me when he's finished, approximately 12:00 p.m eastern time. He will know by next Friday whether he passed. Please wish him well in spite of the hatred in here. It would mean a lot to me. I know you would never wish him well out loud, but it doesn't mean you don't wish him well in your heart.

Justin (my son) actually prevented someone from having to go through a very serious surgery. The attending physician from another hospital came to his hospital where he was a resident to perform surgery on this young man whom they believed had a lifethreatening situation in need of immediate intervention. My son was the resident there and happened to be looking at the film. He had serious doubts after viewing the x-ray that this was the real diagnosis. He had seen this before, and it appeared that it was the fault of the x-ray itself which sometimes forms a shadow and gives the appearance that something is seriously wrong. In other words, when a person is inhaling, it can show up as a problem when it's just a technical glitch in the x-ray. When they went out to the waiting room, the guy was feeling great, but they were ready to open him up. That could have caused unnecessary complications, and in the end could have killed him. My son happened to be a very astute observer (I think he took after his grandfather ) which allowed him to prevent a potentially deadly outcome. I hope you all understand why I am so proud of my son, and I hope you wish him well too.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Then surely, if that's true and your father's ideas were right, you would have stopped doing it?

Stop doing what Mickthinks? If my father's ideas were right, why would I stop my effort in trying to get people to recognize his knowledge? Why would I stop trying to get scientists involved? I don't get where you're coming from.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you think I would accept something that was so against women?

Women-hating women are nothing new, sad to say.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I also want you all to wish my son good luck.

No problem. Here's wishing your son all the best on his orals and in his career. Where does he plan to set up shop once the fellowship is over?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Which words did I misconstrue? I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics need to make this statement not sexual objectification

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs. ~Lessans page 162

I'll even break it down and compare to my equivalent sentence, and you explain what has been misconstrued

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type
If the hot girl won't fuck you

he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him
find any girl who will

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.
then fixate on her vagina

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which words did I misconstrue? I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics need to make this statement not sexual objectification

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs. ~Lessans page 162

I'll even break it down and compare to my equivalent sentence, and you explain what has been misconstrued

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type
If the hot girl won't fuck you

he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him
find any girl who will

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.
then fixate on her vagina

It must be spring.

[LadyShea]

Best wishes to your son, the world needs excellent medical professionals.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A camera would be taking a picture in real time if efferent vision turns out to be true.

Interestingly enough, earlier you had explicitly stated that a camera does not take pictures in real time, because the camera -- unlike the human eye -- would have to wait for the light to arrive before it could take a picture of the object emitting it.

Want me to quote it back to you again?

Even though the conversion of light into chemical-electrical impulses sounds very plausible on paper, it is still a theory, which should allow another explanation to be considered, even if it is not a fully mapped out model of sight at the present time.

Actually, it isn't a "theory" at all that photoreceptors transduce photons into electrochemical impulses. It's a thoroughly-tested, repeatedly-verified fact.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In spite of the fact that davidm is trying so desperately to make it appear that there are absolutely no facts involved in this thread...

There are plenty of facts involved in this thread -- by The Lone Ranger, me, LadyShea, and many others.

There just aren't any facts provided by you.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've explained it, but you can't stand it because your entire world falls apart. David, did you realize that your repetition means nothing? It explains nothing, and it does nothing to prove Lessans wrong? Why are you so afraid of the truth, if it turns out to be the truth. I have to repeat that this is definitely a problem with you, not Lessans.

You've explained nothing. You're incapable of explaining it. NO ONE can explain it, because it involves a logical contradiction. It is not logically possible that one can instantaneously see something that takes 8.5 minutes to be seen. You yourself have ADMITTED you have NO EXPLANATION for this. To you, quoting your own words, it is as mysterious as "how the grass grows." So why do you believe it? I explained THAT many pages ago. Your relation to reality is as follows:

If Lessans said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

The rest of the quoted part represents another example of your projecting onto others your own shortcomings. Unlike you, it does not matter to me a whit what the physical world actually is like. If it turned out that most of our scientific theories were wrong and had to be replaced, it would not mean that my "entire world falls apart." Quite to the contrary, I am absolutely fascinated by scientific discoveries and I hope that I will live long enough to see real revolutions in science take place, like, for instance, a theory that accommodates both quantum mechanics and general relativity.

It is YOU whose world falls apart because Lessans has been proven to be wrong, which is why you cannot accept the undeniable proofs, repeatedly given to you in this thread and at other forums, of how wrong he was. It is YOU whose world falls apart, because you have an obvious personal stake in this idiocy, and evidently have wasted a considerable portion of your life promoting this drivel to no effect. Nor will it have an effect no matter how long you flog this crap, because, as The Lone Ranger just pointed out, the method of seeing that he describes in the essay that you admit you won't read (talk about fearing facts!) is a well-established and wholly confirmed FACT.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your entire position is the opposite of mine, so, of course, you would be in complete disagreement. A camera would be taking a picture in real time if efferent vision turns out to be true.

Except that you said:

In the case of the sun being ignited, the camera would have no way of taking a picture because the wavelengths have not arrived for the camera to do so. But a human eye is different in that it is seeing the object or image directly, so in that sense a camera cannot be compared to a human eye. In a human eye, the brain is using the retina to see the object or image, whereas a camera is actually able to develop a picture as a direct result of the light's wavelength.

Compare now with:

The wavelengths that the camera is capturing would be in real time because the object seen by the eye (if it is large enough and bright enough) is seen in real time, not a delayed picture.

So which is it, peacegirl? You are on record as saying that the camera both does, and does not, take pictures in real time!

Even if the light has traveled many light years or minutes from its original source, we would still see the light source in real time.

HOW?

Oh, wait! You've already admitted that you don't know! Which doesn't stop you, however, from repeatedly lying by saying that you've already explained it!

Please do note that it is logically impossible to instantaenously see something that cannot be seen for 8.5 minutes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yeah? Please explain the context of that passage, peacegirl, that makes it not equivalent to him saying "If the hot girl won't fuck you, find any girl who will and then fixate on her vagina".

I'm actually laughing because that is not what he's saying. The way you are misconstruing this sentence is absolutely ridiculous.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I'm a woman, are you kidding? Do you think I would accept something that was against women? This is a totally nonsensical. What more can I say LadyShea other than you absolutely misconstrued this comment because you did not read the book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which words did I misconstrue? I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics need to make this statement not sexual objectification.

Oh my godddd, I cannot believe you think I'm doing mental gymnastics. So I guess you refuse to read the book, which would explain what he meant. You obviously rushed to judgment, which is a typical response in here.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs. ~Lessans page 162

Do you see what you're doing? You are, as usual, taking this sentence out of total context. There is no way you would understand what he meant if you didn't complete Chapters Four and Five.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'll even break it down and compare to my equivalent sentence, and you explain what has been misconstrued

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type
If the hot girl won't fuck you

LadyShea, I can't believe you think this. It's the exact opposite but you came to a premature conclusion because you assumed it was meant to objectify women, when it does the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him
find any girl who will

Oh me oh my, once again, you are sooo off the mark. You know, I was ready to explain what he meant (which you would have already understood if you had read these chapters with the intention of understanding them), but I changed my mind because you will probably misread my words, as usual, and accuse Lessans of something he is innocent of.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.
then fixate on her vagina

I will repeat, these few sentences were supposed to be in context with what came before them. Anything can be made to give a wrong impression if that is the goal. You can easily make something into what it isn't, and that's what you're doing LadyShea. I think you, like David, want to bring him down in the name of truth. But you won't be able to once this knowledge is confirmed valid. He has something of significance to offer the world, and no matter what anyone says, it's not going to stop this discovery from coming to light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Best wishes to your son, the world needs excellent medical professionals.

Thanks LadyShea!!

[mickthinks]

Sorry if I lost you there, pg. I believe we were talking about your participation in this thread. I've emphasised the salient pronouns in the conversation to help you to follow it:

pg: This is what makes this whole thread so very unfortunate, and why I won't do it again.
mick: You mean, not of your own free will?
pg: If I choose not to do this again, it is because when comparing to do this or not to do this, it gives me greater satisfaction not to do this.
mick: Then surely, if that's true and your father's ideas were right, you would have stopped doing it?
pg: Stop doing what?

I think the very fact that you are still doing something you say you won't do again is solid evidence that you haven't understood your father's ideas about determinism.

[LadyShea]

I read both chapters, pg. There is NO context that can make that passage anything other than it is. Objectification. I saw your previously deleted attempt at explanation and sorry, but pathetic.

In the New World relationships are all sexy clothes and tasty meals and sexual satisfaction and staying thin. Not one word about shared interests, common goals, problem solving, emotional support, intellectual stimulation, personal growth, laughter, adventure, friendship, companionship, teamwork or any of the million of ways that committed relationships incorporate agape and filia as well as eros.

Objectifying and fucking shallow. In a word, disgusting.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, I hope your son does well in his exams. Just curious which school did he attend, close to where I live is Hershey medical center, which is a 'Teaching Hospital' and my cardiologist also teaches at Penn State University, which is associated with the hospital.

[Awareness]

Peacegirl: That’s why a baby must learn to use his vision. Before long his visual mechanics work well. But his vision is still poor. Why? Because he understands little of what he sees. The brain is not yet playing its full part in seeing.

It's too bad you do not know anything about life peacegirl.
And are just looking for answers, somebody elses.
Peacegirl with stolen views of other people.
That will be your review.
An idiot under false pretences, being taught by others.
Or do you really mean what you say Peacegirl?

A baby sees life as it is in it's full glory, later on there is no vision anymore, just lifeless sight and having a distorted brainwork, humping in the tailpipe of a car, or following non existant trends, and eating fast foods in an atmosphere that smells like fresh piss.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A camera would be taking a picture in real time if efferent vision turns out to be true.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Interestingly enough, earlier you had explicitly stated that a camera does not take pictures in real time, because the camera -- unlike the human eye -- would have to wait for the light to arrive before it could take a picture of the object emitting it.

Want me to quote it back to you again?

What I meant by that is that if the sun were suddenly turned on by God, a camera would not be able to take a picture of the sun until the light got here 8.5 minutes later because the camera is not taking a picture of the actual image or object. The lightwaves are allowing the camera to convert the image into a picture. But this example regarding the sun was hypothetical. Any pictures taken of a celestial body in outer space are taken from telescopes which means that the light is already available. If a celestial body is so close to Earth that it could be seen by the naked eye, the light would already have traversed this distance, therefore the camera would be taking a picture in real time.

Even though the conversion of light into chemical-electrical impulses sounds very plausible on paper, it is still a theory, which should allow another explanation to be considered, even if it is not a fully mapped out model of sight at the present time.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, it isn't a "theory" at all that photoreceptors transduce photons into electrochemical impulses. It's a thoroughly-tested, repeatedly-verified fact.

I realize you want to put the conversation to rest, and be the winner here. There are many so-called facts that turn out to be wrong. Actually, this whole argument has been null and void from day one because the world already has taken for granted that the eyes are a sense organ. It is considered a fact, so for you to say photoreceptors transduce photons into electrochemical impulses is a fact, begs the question: Is the proof so strong that there can be absolutely no other way of looking at it? I don't think so. Many empirical tests have been misinterpreted, or proved later to be have been misleading.