A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have showed why your accusations have been unjustified. You haven't even delved into his rationale for his claim regarding efferent vision. You have only attacked him on the grounds that you can't figure out how light can be at the eye when it hasn't traveled to earth.

For the millionth time, it's utterly irrelevant how he got to his conclusions because they are demonstrably wrong.

Now, what about the time-of-flight camera? It captures an image and definitely not in real time.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You don't get it do you GdB? This thread is about Lessans' book. Therefore, every single post in this thread is about Lessans, even if it isn't.

Upss... Guilty as charged.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

For the millionth, it's utterly irrelevant how he got to his conclusions because they are demonstrably wrong.

I don't think his claim is demonstrably wrong unless certain logical (but false) conclusions are being made.

Originally Posted by But

Now, what about the time-of-flight camera? It captures an image and definitely not in real time.

This claim is not going to be answered adequately here. We know light travels and can be measured. And we also know that a delayed image will appear when light is being tracked from the point of departure to the time it takes for the pulsed light to strike the object and be reflected back. I am not denying what is demonstrably true, but I don't think this conflicts with his claim. I think this video carefully demonstrates how the time-of-flight camera works.

3D Time of Flight Imaging Solutions - YouTube

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, GdB was the only person I was interested in talking to and he gave up on me quite quickly.

Quickly??!!! That is an insult! When was my first reaction on your thread at CFI? Looked it up: March this year.

As I once said, I am prepared to discuss your ideas, based on an honest exchange of arguments. It turned out not to be easy, as you are misusing concepts ('forced by your preferences'...), criticise CFW on basis of LFW (in which you do not believe), do not accept established scientific conclusions, avoid giving answers on concrete questions, and do as if you understand science where you simply have no idea (Rømer, relativity) and so give nonsense reactions ('instantaneous vision does not contradict relativity'). I think you know that your ideas of efferent vision do not hold, but you simply don't want to admit it, after all these years of defending it. Your emotional investment is just too big.

And then I just am not interested in the book. It is just full of crackpot ideas, and you know that this is my view on it. I prefer to read books based on real science, or philosophy books with good arguments that make me think. Your father's book is neither. Sorry.

Still interested in talking with me?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Quickly??!!! That is an insult! When was my first reaction on your thread at CFI? Looked it up: March this year.

As I once said, I am prepared to discuss your ideas, based on an honest exchange of arguments.

No you're not. You won't let me continue. You keep telling me the book is valueless and the only concept that makes sense is CFW.

Originally Posted by GdB

It turned out not to be easy, as you are misusing concepts ('forced by your preferences'...),

The word "force" is confusing to say the least. You ARE compelled by your preferences, that is true. Show me where it is possible to choose what you prefer less when given a list of alternatives. If you can do that, then Lessans would be wrong, but this IS AN IMMUTABLE LAW and it is very important to this discussion.

Originally Posted by GdB

criticise CFW on basis of LFW (in which you do not believe),

I am not criticizing CFW on the basis of LFW. I am criticizing CFW because it is still a band aid solution. That should be enough for you to want to hear what other solutions are possible. If you can't do that, how can we communicate?

Originally Posted by GdB

do not accept established scientific conclusions, avoid giving answers on concrete questions, and do as if you understand science where you simply have no idea (Rømer, relativity) and so give nonsense reactions ('instantaneous vision does not contradict relativity'). I think you know that your ideas of efferent vision do not hold, but you simply don't want to admit it, after all these years of defending it. Your emotional investment is just too big.

I admit that I have an emotional investment. After all, I was this man's daughter but that doesn't automatically make him wrong and me just a loving daughter who just couldn't face the truth. I do not believe that the wonderful technologies using light (e.g., fiber optics, GPS systems, time-of-flight imaging, etc. ) do anything to discredit real time vision.

Originally Posted by GdB

And then I just am not interested in the book. It is just full of crackpot ideas, and you know that this is my view on it.

The fact that you took thedoc's words right out of his mouth when he disagreed with this statement: "If you disagree with the book that means you don't understand it" shows me that you're just following the leader without making any effort of your own.

Originally Posted by GdB

I prefer to read books based on real science, or philosophy books with good arguments that make me think. Your father's book is neither. Sorry.

Still interested in talking with me?

Not if you categorize this book as you are. Forget his claim of efferent vision for a moment. That's not even the most important discovery. Believe me, this book would make you think and reconsider your position. But you're not giving it half a chance.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think his claim is demonstrably wrong unless certain logical (but false) conclusions are being made.

This claim is not going to be answered adequately here. We know light travels and can be measured. And we also know that a delayed image will appear when light is being tracked from the point of departure to the time it takes for the pulsed light to strike the object and be reflected back. I am not denying what is demonstrably true, but I don't think this conflicts with his claim. I think this video carefully demonstrates how the time-of-flight camera works.

3D Time of Flight Imaging Solutions - YouTube

It contradicts your earlier claim that we don't get images from light alone. The camera records an image, and it doesn't do it in real time.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So use the term slander.

Slander is a subset of defamation, and the wrong subset at that. My goodness you're stupid.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I could have done a better job if I had been equipped to deal with the nasty comments directed toward me.

Maybe you wouldn't have had to deal with nasty comments had you not been such a roaring asshole from your very first day here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, I was not prepared or I would have responded differently, in the direction of greater satisfaction.

If you really weren't prepared, then you're even dumber and less competent than I thought. The reaction to your assholery that you received here was identical to the reaction you received at all the other forums you invaded before arriving here.

As always, you keep doing the same shit over and over, yet you expect different results.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If someone strikes a first blow (which these attacks against me have been), I am justified to strike back in retaliation.

That's right, and since you were an obnoxious, condescending shitball from the day you arrived, we were perfectly justified in retaliating. Right?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not Gandhi LadyShea.

That's true. You're a lying asshole.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He had a reason for why he burned his books.

Indeed. It's called histrionic personality disorder.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that LadyShea, and I am going to move towards these avenues as soon as possible.

lol no you're not. You don't want an echo chamber. That would deprive you of the negative attention you crave.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not doing anything until after the new year

The life of a lilywhite American woman of leisure is not an easy one.

Oh, and btw, you're not doing anything after the first of the year either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

It contradicts your earlier claim that we don't get images from light alone. The camera records an image, and it doesn't do it in real time.

When I said we don't get images from light alone I meant that we don't interpret the images from light. This still stands. I believe the confusion comes from the fact that light travels. But this doesn't mean that the eyes are waiting for light to arrive at the retina IF the object is already within optical range (which it must be in order to see the object). Remember, the requirements must be met for efferent vision to work. I know this is difficult.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Slander is a subset of defamation, and the wrong subset at that. My goodness you're stupid.

Maybe you wouldn't have had to deal with nasty comments had you not been such a roaring asshole from your very first day here.

If you really weren't prepared, then you're even dumber and less competent than I thought. The reaction to your assholery that you received here was identical to the reaction you received at all the other forums you invaded before arriving here.

As always, you keep doing the same shit over and over, yet you expect different results.

That's right, and since you were an obnoxious, condescending shitball from the day you arrived, we were perfectly justified in retaliating. Right?

That's true. You're a lying asshole.

Indeed. It's called histrionic personality disorder.

lol no you're not. You don't want an echo chamber. That would deprive you of the negative attention you crave.

The life of a lilywhite American woman of leisure is not an easy one.

Oh, and btw, you're not doing anything after the first of the year either.

When I finally do move on, you won't be there. Horaaaayyyyy!!

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I said we don't get images from light alone I meant that we don't interpret the images from light. This still stands. I believe the confusion comes from the fact that light travels. But this doesn't mean that the eyes are waiting for light to arrive at the retina IF the object is already within optical range (which it must be in order to see the object). Remember, the requirements must be met for efferent vision to work. I know this is difficult.

I already pointed out that your requirements are met in the case of the time-of-flight camera. The object is bright enough and big enough to be seen.

Then you made up another requirement, that the light has to stay at the object for some amount of time. But it never does that. Light cannot stay anywhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

I already pointed out that your requirements are met in the case of the time-of-flight camera. The object is bright enough and big enough to be seen.

Then you made up another requirement, that the light has to stay at the object for some amount of time. But it never does that. Light cannot stay anywhere.

You misunderstood me when I said the light has to stay at the object. Light travels, so I did not intend that to mean that light stays without moving. But if you take a laser and shine it on an object and then turn the source of the light off, how could the object meet the requirements long enough for us to see it? IOW, how in the world could we register what we're seeing in that split second when the pulsed light is already on its way back? But, I appreciate your interest but this discussion will only add more fodder for jokes by Maturin and others, and I am tired of being the brunt of such vitriol.

[Dragar]

Bump! Are you ever going to explain how mirrors work?

Originally Posted by Dragar

So why does it matter, given we don't 'interpret the light' in your version of events?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Bump! Are you ever going to explain how mirrors work?

It matters only in the sense that it changes how we view ourselves and our relationship to the external world. It doesn't change anything as far as how we use light in all of the amazing technologies that we now have.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

p. 120 The question as to
how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our
scientists. The answer will be given shortly, however, let me make
one thing absolutely clear. The knowledge revealed thus far
although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have
Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance.
Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense
organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog
cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great
deal to me, when the purpose of this book is to remove all evil from
our lives (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt that exists in
human relation), is to demonstrate how certain words have
absolutely no foundation in reality yet they have caused the worst
suffering and unhappiness imaginable. Let me explain.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It matters only in the sense that it changes how we view ourselves and our relationship to the external world. It doesn't change anything as far as how we use light in all of the amazing technologies that we now have.

Hmm. Dragar asked for an explanation of how mirrors work. I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, to be sure, but I'm pretty sure your response contains nothing resembling an explanation.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It matters only in the sense that it changes how we view ourselves and our relationship to the external world. It doesn't change anything as far as how we use light in all of the amazing technologies that we now have.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

p. 120 The question as to
how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our
scientists. The answer will be given shortly, however, let me make
one thing absolutely clear. The knowledge revealed thus far
although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have
Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance.
Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense
organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog
cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great
deal to me, when the purpose of this book is to remove all evil from
our lives (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt that exists in
human relation), is to demonstrate how certain words have
absolutely no foundation in reality yet they have caused the worst
suffering and unhappiness imaginable. Let me explain.

peacegirl, how does this have anything to do with mirrors? You seem to be struggling to answer this question.

Let me ask again:

Why does it matter that light is reflected differently from mirrors than walls, given we don't 'interpret the light' in your version of events?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, how does this have anything to do with mirrors? You seem to be struggling to answer this question.

Let me ask again:

Why does it matter that light is reflected differently from mirrors than walls, given we don't 'interpret the light' in your version of events?

Light is not reflected differently from mirrors than walls. What are getting at?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is not reflected differently from mirrors than walls. What are getting at?

We're going backwards now! Okay, if light isn't reflected differently from mirrors than from walls, why do mirrors work? Why can I see my reflection in a mirror, not on a wall?

What I'm getting at is that you can't explain something as simple as mirrors with your silly ideas about vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

We're going backwards now! Okay, if light isn't reflected differently from mirrors than from walls, why do mirrors work? Why can I see my reflection in a mirror, not on a wall?

What I'm getting at is that you can't explain something as simple as mirrors with your silly ideas about vision.

Why are you making such a big deal about mirrors, as if the fact that light is reflected off of the surface of the mirror discounts efferent vision?

Light coming from wherever hits you, reflects off of you, hits the mirror, and then bounces back off of the mirror. The fraction of that light that hits your eyes allows you to see the image of "you" in the mirror.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you making such a big deal about mirrors, as if the fact that light is reflected off of the surface of the mirror discounts efferent vision?

Light coming from wherever hits you, reflects off of you, hits the mirror, and then bounces back off of the mirror. The fraction of that light that hits your eyes allows you to see the image of "you" in the mirror.

Light coming from wherever hits you, reflects off of you, hits the wall, and then bounces back off of the wall. The fraction of that light that hits your eyes doesn't allow you to see the image of "you" on the wall.

Why?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you making such a big deal about mirrors, as if the fact that light is reflected off of the surface of the mirror discounts efferent vision?

Light coming from wherever hits you, reflects off of you, hits the mirror, and then bounces back off of the mirror.

The same is true for walls, not just mirrors. So why can't I see my reflection on a wall?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it is useful. Conscience is that whisper that tells us we should not do something. The only difference is that in today's world our conscience will allow us to do things that would not be permitted under different environmental conditions.

The different environmental conditions are the men with the guns who will shoot you if you don't agree with Lessanology.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The pulses of light would have to be at the object long enough for our eyes to register what we're seeing. I don't think it would work because by the time we see anything, the pulses of light would have already been reflected back.[/QUOTE]


So now you are saying that the light needs to be reflected back from the object so that we can see the object, that implies light traveling which takes time to travel and negates instant vision.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1238739]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So use the term slander.

Wrong again, "slander" is the spoken word against another person which is untrue, "Liable" is the written word, in print, which is what appears on the screen, but it needs to be untrue, and so far everything written about Lessans has been true, so not Liable.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, GdB was the only person I was interested in talking to and he gave up on me quite quickly.

Actually GdB gave you quite a bit of time to state your case, which you totally failed to do, before he disagreed with your basic ideas.

Odd that you leave a discussion when people start to agree with you and take up with those who disagree and are hostile about it. It's like you are feeding your martyr complex more than anything else.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, the requirements must be met for efferent vision to work. I know this is difficult.

It's not difficult, it's just stupid nonsense.