A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Those who don't get the joke, will often become the butt of the joke.

[thedoc]

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.

So now light travels and we don't see images instantly.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So, just because he expresses his disagreement with you that somehow stops you from continuing to argue for your position? That makes perfect sense.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You won't let me continue. You keep telling me the book is valueless and the only concept that makes sense is CFW.

I can let you continue. But then your ideas about free will and determinism are not that important. Because you cannot continue if these are essential, because I do not agree.
But there are two things we agree on: for all practical purposes, determinism is true, and we have no LFW.

If that is enough basis for continuing, then we can go on. Otherwise we simply can't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I fully agree, I cannot give such an example. If that is enough to continue, then please do. However, do not forget: if your are 'compelled' by your own reasons, I call that 'having free will'. Being able to do what you want' is the standard way of formulating this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not criticizing CFW on the basis of LFW.

You do: saying that because we cannot do otherwise under exactly the same circumstances, and therefore are not free, is assuming that it is a relevant argument. But only LFW assumes this, CFW does not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

CFW is a solution to an intelligibility problem: how we can understand free will in a deterministic world. CFW shows that it is a pseudo-problem, based on a false understanding of what free will really is. Nothing more. For this your father has no solution at all. He fully falls in the pit of empty concepts.

If you mean a solution for the problems of the world: I wonder if CFW would not be a sufficient basis for your father's ideas. See above. CFW assumes that for all practical purposes we live in a deterministic world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

That is right. Therefore we need arguments. But we all notice that you keep sticking to ideas that are proven false. Then above observation explains your stubbornness against truths that you do not want to be true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Even if that were true: relativity theory, and everything we know about how eyes work do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I have noticed this argumentative scheme of you here and at CFI. I also would have noticed without thedoc.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I am here to discuss ideas. If you just want me to read the book: forget it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So now light travels and we don't see images instantly.

The distance we are talking about is a nanosecond or less. This "traveling light" does not falsify the claim whatsoever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

I can let you continue. But then your ideas about free will and determinism are not that important. Because you cannot continue if these are essential, because I do not agree.
But there are two things we agree on: for all practical purposes, determinism is true, and we have no LFW.

If that is enough basis for continuing, then we can go on. Otherwise we simply can't.

I fully agree, I cannot give such an example. If that is enough to continue, then please do. However, do not forget: if your are 'compelled' by your own reasons, I call that 'having free will'. Being able to do what you want' is the standard way of formulating this.

You do: saying that because we cannot do otherwise under exactly the same circumstances, and therefore are not free, is assuming that it is a relevant argument. But only LFW assumes this, CFW does not.

CFW is a solution to an intelligibility problem: how we can understand free will in a deterministic world. CFW shows that it is a pseudo-problem, based on a false understanding of what free will really is. Nothing more. For this your father has no solution at all. He fully falls in the pit of empty concepts.

If you mean a solution for the problems of the world: I wonder if CFW would not be a sufficient basis for your father's ideas. See above. CFW assumes that for all practical purposes we live in a deterministic world.

That is right. Therefore we need arguments. But we all notice that you keep sticking to ideas that are proven false. Then above observation explains your stubbornness against truths that you do not want to be true.

Even if that were true: relativity theory, and everything we know about how eyes work do.

I have noticed this argumentative scheme of you here and at CFI. I also would have noticed without thedoc.

I am here to discuss ideas. If you just want me to read the book: forget it.

Unfortunately GdB, I don't think this is going to work. There are many other people you can talk to here or in CFI that will be more accepting of your ideas. I think you should discuss your worldview with them.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The distance we are talking about is a nanosecond or less.

No, that's a time, dumbass.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This "traveling light" does not falsify the claim whatsoever.

Of course it does. As long as you admit that there is a time delay determined by the distance light has to travel to be at the eye, real time vision is falsified.

You KNOW this.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Your "requirements" are nonsense, so it's irrelevant. The object doesn't even have to exist anymore when you 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?

We don't see anything when the light is on its way back. We see it shortly after the light hits the retina. And where is the problem? Do you have difficulty seeing things illuminated by a camera flash? Or a stroboscopic light? What the retina does is collect photons, and it doesn't care whether they all arrive at once.

No, the time-of-flight camera is another thing that disproves "efferent vision".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The distance we are talking about is a nanosecond or less. This "traveling light" does not falsify the claim whatsoever.

Any travel time, no matter how small, negates Lessans version of instant vision. So which is it? "instant vision" or are you ready to abandon that idea and come back to the real world? A nanosecond or less only applies to terrestrial objects that are being seen, once you are looking at objects off planet the time gets progressively longer, as has been demonstrated for many years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Any travel time, no matter how small, negates Lessans version of instant vision. So which is it? "instant vision" or are you ready to abandon that idea and come back to the real world? A nanosecond or less only applies to terrestrial objects that are being seen, once you are looking at objects off planet the time gets progressively longer, as has been demonstrated for many years.

You have no clue doc. Just forget it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Your "requirements" are nonsense, so it's irrelevant. The object doesn't even have to exist anymore when you see it.

We don't see anything when the light is on its way back. We see it shortly after the light hits the retina. And where is the problem? Do you have difficulty seeing things illuminated by a camera flash? Or a stroboscopic light? What the retina does is collect photons, and it doesn't care whether they all arrive at once.

No, the time-of-flight camera is another thing that disproves "efferent vision".

It actually doesn't IF AND ONLY IF THE EYE WORKS AS LESSANS DESCRIBED, even with the nanosecond of time. Actually, I don't think this nanosecond has anything to do with this claim (or its denial) because I told you that we are already in optical range IF WE SEE THE OBJECT. Have you questioned this, or are you just ignoring anything that seems contradictory? I am really tired of this discussion, so I am not going to respond anymore. If you have thoughts about this claim, good for you. I hope you continue to question the theory that has become status quo. No one has taken his discovery seriously as a result, which makes this a very sad set of circumstances. I don't know what the answer is, but I will not waste my time talking about the eyes and whether he was right or wrong. This will come later -- after his first discovery is validated.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually doesn't if it does not IF AND ONLY IF THE EYE WORKS AS LESSANS DESCRIBED, even with the nanosecond of time. Actually, I don't think this nanosecond is part of this claim because I told you that we are already in optical range IF WE SEE THE OBJECT. Have you questioned this, or are you just ignoring anything that seems contradictory? I am really tired of this discussion, so I am not going to respond. No one has taken his discovery seriously because of this, which makes this a very sad set of circumstances. I don't know what the answer is, but I will not waste my time talking about the eyes and whether he was right or wrong. This will come later after his first discovery is validated.

This nanosecond garbage was never any part of Lessans' ideas. It's just the latest bullshit that you have fabricated in your desperate attempts to avoid admitting what you already know to be true.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately GdB, I don't think this is going to work. There are many other people you can talk to here or in CFI that will be more accepting of your ideas. I think you should discuss your worldview with them.

So you think it is interesting to discuss with people who think the same as you? I think that is boring.

But the summary of your argument is that you do not want to discuss your ideas here with me anymore, because I won't read the book, and think that what you pasted into these fora here does not suffice to give me a justification. And then I did not even mention efferent vision.

If you do not want to discuss with me, why do you want with the others here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This nanosecond garbage was never any part of Lessans' ideas. It's just the latest bullshit that you have fabricated in your desperate attempts to avoid admitting what you already know to be true.

It wasn't. I was only extending the knowledge, which I have every right to do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

So you think it is interesting to discuss with people who think the same as you? I think that is boring.

I don't expect people to agree with me if they don't understand what is being expressed, and the majority don't. They just go along with the tide and assume Lessans was as troll with nothing of value to offer. This gives them the justification to argue back, as if they know what they're talking about. That is not only boring but terribly inadequate.

Originally Posted by GdB

But the summary of your argument is that you do not want to discuss your ideas here with me anymore, because I won't read the book,

Who the hell can discuss something they know nothing about GdB? Humor me and tell me how you can do that?

Originally Posted by GdB

and think that what you pasted into these fora here does not suffice to give me a justification. And then I did not even mention efferent vision.

I don't know of any true discoverer who would feel that it was adequate to give his work a quick rundown in a three sentence summary.

Originally Posted by GdB

If you do not want to discuss with me, why do you want with the others here?

I don't.

[The Lone Ranger]

It has been pointed out before, but your problem isn't that people don't understand Lessans' claims [to the extent that he makes intelligible claims, that is] -- but that they do understand them.

It is possible to understand a claim and yet not accept it. You don't seem to be capable of grasping this simple truth, though -- not where Lessans is concerned, at least.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It has been pointed out before, but your problem isn't that people don't understand Lessans' claims [to the extent that he makes intelligible claims, that is] -- but that they do understand them.

It is possible to understand a claim and yet not accept it. You don't seem to be capable of grasping this simple truth, though -- not where Lessans is concerned, at least.

Do you understand why he made the claim he did? I don't think you do. I don't think anyone understands his second discovery yet they act like they understand it therefore their disagreement is valid. Right. Just because his observations were not tested empirically does not make him automatically wrong. Even if you are doubtful, all 3 of his discoveries deserve a full investigation not by people in here but by people who have the capacity and the desire to do whatever is necessary to test these claims accurately.

[The Lone Ranger]

He made lots of claims. What he never bothered to provide was 1.) a single shred of evidence, or 2.) a coherent and logically-consistent explanation.

All you have are "astute observations" which you'll never, ever explain or cite. As soon as anyone asks what those "astute observations" actually were, when they were made, under what circumstances, how he controlled for bias, etc., etc., etc. -- you try to change the subject.


In short, you've got exactly nothing when it comes to justifying these assertions. Lessans made lots of assertions, but neither he nor you have ever provided any reason whatsoever for anyone to take them seriously other than, "trust me, he made lots of unspecified 'astute observations' which justify his claims -- somehow."

It doesn't help that an awful lot of the "evidence" you've cited in "support" of Lessans' claims is demonstrably false and often outright lies.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't expect people to agree with me if they don't understand what is being expressed, and the majority don't.

That is close to saying if people understand me then they agree with me. Therefore I am pretty sure that if I do not agree, you will say I did not understand the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who the hell can discuss something they know nothing about GdB? Humor me and tell me how you can do that?

I want to discuss with you, your ideas, here. I can do that without the book, if you are serious in discussing your ideas. Got it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know of any true discoverer who would feel that it was adequate to give his work a quick rundown in a three sentence summary.

You copied much more than 3 sentences. And I read the first chapter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't.

Ah! Now that is an example of having no free will. You do not want to discuss with the others here, but you are doing it continuously.

Or is it...? Hmm... shit! According to you it means you have free will, because you prefer not to discuss, but you are doing it.

Oh, help, this is so confusing! Can somebody help me??

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by GdB

That is close to saying if people understand me then they agree with me. Therefore I am pretty sure that if I do not agree, you will say I did not understand the book.

That has been her standard tactic since Day One. Anyone who doesn't fall on their knees and declare Lessans the greatest thinker ever is accused of failing to understand -- or she insists they're too "close-minded" to accept Lessans' greatness.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The distance we are talking about is a nanosecond or less. This "traveling light" does not falsify the claim whatsoever.

A "nanosecond" is a unit of time not a unit of distance, a "light nanosecond" is the distance light travels in one nanosecond. You constantly demonstrate that you have no understanding of what you are talking about. Talking to you is Much like talking with this guy, quite amusing, but not very informative.

Gabby Johnson, Blazing Saddles rant - YouTube

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This nanosecond garbage was never any part of Lessans' ideas. It's just the latest bullshit that you have fabricated in your desperate attempts to avoid admitting what you already know to be true.

Lessans never said a thing about light needing to be at the retina in order to see things either. In fact she used to say light only needed to be at the object.Lessans certainly wouldn't have talked about the light taking 8 minutes to reach Earth and be used to see each other if he thought light was instantaneously located at retinas on Earth.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans never said a thing about light needing to be at the retina in order to see things either. In fact she used to say light only needed to be at the object. Lessans certainly wouldn't have talked about the light taking 8 minutes to reach Earth and be used to see each other if he thought light was instantaneously located at retinas on Earth.

Yes, Lessans only required light to be surrounding the object being seen, there was nothing about light being at the retina. That was added by Peacegirl to appease those on this forum and others, who pointed out that the retina only reacted to light striking the retina. I would guess that Peacegirl still believes Lessans is correct and light is composed of molecules, and only uses the term photons to avoid comment by those on this forum who know better. She seems to only be interested in hostility and abuse over the main ideas in the book, and will change details as they are pointed out to her.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you not only challenged me at every turn but you were biased against him from day one. The fact that you announced that I was making assertions is completely false. These are not assertions. You tried to find things about him that you could use as ammunition. Well, it didn't work. He had a reason for why he burned his books. He was no more irrational than Stephen Hawking or Einstein would have been under the same circumstances. How could I have reacted any other way but defensively when you painted a picture of him that was a lie?

I did all of that the first day you were here, when you speculated about my being a "very bitter individual" and then stated I was "too angry to communicate with"?

[The Lone Ranger]

Of course, in peacegirl's world, the only "legitimate" form of "criticism" where Lessans is concerned goes something like this: "Wow! Lessans was such a genius! Where can I learn more about his discoveries?"

Within 24 hours of her first posting links to Lessans' writings here, she was insisting that anyone who failed to be immediately convinced of Lessans' greatness and the legitimacy of his "discoveries" was either incapable of understanding his genius or was lying about having read the excerpts.