A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[Random paste from the internet]

peacegirl, did you read the thing you quoted? Did you note that quote explains that mirrors reflect differently to walls, for instance, contradicting your earlier claim that mirrors don't reflect differently to walls?

And not only have you contradicted yourself once, you're now relying on the idea we 'interpret patterns of light' to use your phrasing, in order for this explanation to have any relevance. So you've contradicted yourself again!

Can you explain mirrors consistently given your claims that mirrors do not reflect light differently, and that we do not 'interpret patterns of light'?

This should be very simple to explain consistently. Your silly ideas about vision appear to be confounded by something as simple as a mirror.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, did you read the thing you quoted? Did you note that quote explains that mirrors reflect differently to walls, for instance, contradicting your earlier claim that mirrors don't reflect differently to walls?

And not only have you contradicted yourself once, you're now relying on the idea we 'interpret patterns of light' to use your phrasing, in order for this explanation to have any relevance. So you've contradicted yourself again!

Can you explain mirrors consistently given your claims that mirrors do not reflect light differently, and that we do not 'interpret patterns of light'?

This should be very simple to explain consistently. Your silly ideas about vision appear to be confounded by something as simple as a mirror.

I gave the explanation, and there should be no further questions in regard to mirrors and how they work. We see our reflections in a mirror due to the material that mirrors are made up of and how light bounces off of these smooth metallic surfaces. I hope you can let this go now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessan introduced time, and the laws of physics violation,by saying efferent vision is instantaneous. Instantly is a reference to time, as is the phrase "no time at all"

Visible supernovas are not seen instantly, we know this because the neutrinos arrive around the same time it becomes visible.

That's the theory.

[LadyShea]

I'm curious to know whether neutrinos actually exist and whether they are the forerunner before seeing a supernovae.

Neutrinos exist and travel at close to the speed of light. If we saw the supernova instantly, but had to wait for the neutrinos to travel the distance, we wouldn't detect the neutrinos until centuries after seeing it.

Neutrinos from Supernovae

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave the explanation, and there should be no further questions in regard to mirrors and how they work. We see our reflections in a mirror due to the material that mirrors are made up of and how light bounces off of these smooth metallic surfaces. I hope you can let this go now.

Of course you haven't given an explanation. Or at least, not one that makes any sense. Only a few posts ago you told me walls and mirrors have no differences in how they reflect light. So how can your (new!) explanation that "how light bounces off of these smooth metallic surfaces" be true, when it flatly contradicts your earlier statement?

Further, even if you'd now like to retract the above (in what more and more appears to be an attempt at deliberate deception rather than a simple mistake), why does how light is reflected have any bearing on what we see? We do not, in your words 'interpret the pattern of light', so why does it matter that the reflected pattern is different? I've asked this question half a dozen times. You have refused to answer it every time. Sometimes you have responded by contradicting yourself, or making stuff up, or pasting quotations that contradict your earlier posts. But you have yet to answer this question.

You can't answer this question. Because the only sensible explanation - the one you alternately quote and then deny! - relies on the well understood mechanism of sight, in flat contradiction to your daft notions.

So now I'll ask again:

How do mirrors work? It can't involve light being reflected differently, because you told me that mirrors don't reflect light differently, and that we don't 'interpret the pattern of light' so it would matter anyway. So how do mirrors work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Of course you haven't given an explanation. Or at least, not one that makes any sense. Only a few posts ago you told me walls and mirrors have no differences in how they reflect light. So how can your (new!) explanation that "how light bounces off of these smooth metallic surfaces" be true, when it flatly contradicts your earlier statement?

Further, even if you'd now like to retract the above (in what more and more appears to be an attempt at deliberate deception rather than a simple mistake), why does how light is reflected have any bearing on what we see? We do not, in your words 'interpret the pattern of light', so why does it matter that the reflected pattern is different? I've asked this question half a dozen times. You have refused to answer it every time. Sometimes you have responded by contradicting yourself, or making stuff up, or pasting quotations that contradict your earlier posts. But you have yet to answer this question.

You can't answer this question. Because the only sensible explanation - the one you alternately quote and then deny! - relies on the well understood mechanism of sight, in flat contradiction to your daft notions.

So now I'll ask again:

How do mirrors work? It can't involve light being reflected differently, because you told me that mirrors don't reflect light differently, and that we don't 'interpret the pattern of light' so it would matter anyway. So how do mirrors work?

Objects reflect light, and light is reflected in different ways based on the angle the light strikes and on the make-up or consistency of the object itself. This is a well understood mechanism. When I said we don't interpret the light, you know what I meant. We use light to see, which has never been disputed. Whatever it is we see is dependent on how light interacts with the object.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Objects reflect light, and light is reflected in different ways based on the angle the light strikes and on the make-up or consistency of the object itself.

So when you said:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is not reflected differently from mirrors than walls.

you were just...making stuff up again?

Whatever it is we see is dependent on how light is reflected by the object.

Why? If we're not 'interpreting the pattern of light', why does it matter how it is reflected by the object?

(I have fixed your sleight of hand with the replacement text in bold. Don't think I didn't notice 'reflects' in the discussion being replaced by 'interacts with'.)

This is the same question I have asked in every post so far. You have still refused to answer it. That's because you can't - the explanation you are reaching for is called standard vision, and leaves no place for your silly notions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

According to Lessans, Man's will is not free because man is always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. But this definition is nonsense because it is self defining and meaningless, since Lessans defines every choice as choosing that which gives greater satisfaction, which is simply not true.

Oh really? Give me an example where it fails.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Some choices are made without regard to that which is the most satisfying, but to simply to make a choice of some sort.

Oftentimes we aren't choosing at all. Making a choice indicates that we are deciding between two or more alternatives. You haven't understood a thing in all this time.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans proved nothing, he just proclaimed it as proof, in spite of his lack of any kind of proof at all.

There is definite proof, but you are blind to it. This was explained very clearly in the book, which, once again, shows me how little you understand.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So when you said:

No Dragar. The property of light doesn't change when it strikes different objects.

Whatever it is we see is dependent on how light is reflected by the object.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why? If we're not 'interpreting the pattern of light', why does it matter how it is reflected by the object?

Because we are using that light to see the object. We can't see the object without light. The only difference is that we're not decoding the light into an image but rather using that light to see the object.

Originally Posted by Dragar

(I have fixed your sleight of hand with the replacement text in bold. Don't think I didn't notice 'reflects' in the discussion being replaced by 'interacts with'.)

You can use the term "reflect" because we know light strikes objects and bounces off in different directions, but the question remains: does that light get interpreted in the brain as normal sight, or do we see the actual object in real time using that light as a bridge to the outside world?

Originally Posted by Dragar

This is the same question I have asked in every post so far. You have still refused to answer it. That's because you can't - the explanation you are reaching for is called standard vision, and leaves no place for your silly notions.

I don't see where this is a silly notion at all. Standard vision doesn't change because of this account.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Neutrinos exist and travel at close to the speed of light. If we saw the supernova instantly, but had to wait for the neutrinos to travel the distance, we wouldn't detect the neutrinos until centuries after seeing it.

Neutrinos from Supernovae

That's the theory, but as we know many theories in the field of physics and astrophysics have come and gone, so we will just have to wait and see whether this theory holds up to scrutiny.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Neutrinos exist and travel at close to the speed of light. If we saw the supernova instantly, but had to wait for the neutrinos to travel the distance, we wouldn't detect the neutrinos until centuries after seeing it.

Neutrinos from Supernovae

Yes, neutrinos have been known to exist for decades and have been detected for many years. Just over a decade ago they were proven to be associated with a supernova and are being used as advanced warning of a close supernova for visible observation. It is known that neutrinos travel slightly slower than light and are emitted several hours before the visible light burst of the supernova, therefore for a relatively close supernova, the detection of the neutrino burst gives advance notice of the visible supernova burst. Peacegirl's doubting of the existence of neutrinos is just another example of her willful ignorance, neutrinos would prove that Lessans was wrong about vision, so Peacegirl denies their existence.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Give me an example where it fails.

Oftentimes we aren't choosing at all. Making a choice indicates that we are deciding between two or more alternatives. You haven't understood a thing in all this time.

There is definite proof, but you are blind to it. This was explained very clearly in the book, which, once again, shows me how little you understand.

Every choice made can be claimed to be in the direction of greater satisfaction, and this is what Lessans claims in the book, but he gives no actual proof, because it is a proposition that cannot be proven, it can only be asserted. Nothing was explained clearly in the book, it was mostly word salad mixed in with butthurt because no-one would listen to his claims. Even his fictional dialogues with others offered no actual proof of anything, just exaggerated claims with no substance to support them.

"Greater Satisfaction" is a meaningless phrase that Lessans threw in to make it sound like he knew what he was talking about. There is no way to prove or disprove the concept, it's just a "red herring".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the theory.

Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of science. In science a theory is well supported by evidence, if there is a question of it's accuracy it is called a hypothesis. A theory is well established and as close to fact as science will admit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Every choice made can be claimed to be in the direction of greater satisfaction, and this is what Lessans claims in the book, but he gives no actual proof, because it is a proposition that cannot be proven, it can only be asserted. Nothing was explained clearly in the book, it was mostly word salad mixed in with butthurt because no-one would listen to his claims. Even his fictional dialogues with others offered no actual proof of anything, just exaggerated claims with no substance to support them.

"Greater Satisfaction" is a meaningless phrase that Lessans threw in to make it sound like he knew what he was talking about. There is no way to prove or disprove the concept, it's just a "red herring".

Whatever you say doc! I'm tired of arguing with you; someone who has no understanding of why this knowledge even matters.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever you say doc! I'm tired of arguing with you; someone who has no understanding of why this knowledge even matters.

If this knowledge were true, it would matter, but most of his claims are bogus. If any of Lessans claims could be demonstrated to be true, there may be some value to his other claims, but all of his claims that can be tested against real life, have failed and are false. Since he has demonstrated the same level of scholarship in all his claims, it can be safely assumed that all his claims are bogus. Also the potential value of the claimed knowledge has no bearing on it's validity, just because Lessans has claimed that this knowledge can eliminate all evil in the world, does not make it true. And since many of his claims have been proven to be false, there is less reason to give his unproven claims a great deal of consideration.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever you say doc! I'm tired of arguing with you; someone who has no understanding of why this knowledge even matters.

I recommend that you take a break, and go play with your grandchildren, do some good in this world. 2 of my grandchildren are coming over later today, and I will be spending some time with them, however the younger one might take a nap, and the older one will probably play with his Lego's. I can't think of anything more important or valuable than that, hawking your father's book is a colossal waste of time.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever you say doc! I'm tired of arguing with you; someone who has no understanding of why this knowledge even matters.

It is a bit Ironic that you ramble on about people with no understanding, when your father has clearly demonstrated in his book that he had no understanding of human nature. Just reading a history written 1,200 years after the fact, can give no accurate account of the human nature of the subjects of the history. At best it can give an account of their recorded activities, but can say nothing about their motives or their unrecorded activities. Gibbons was guessing as to why people acted as they did, but had no sound basis for those conclusions, just as Lessans had no sound basis for any of his claims. The best Lessans could hope to do was to glean some of Gibbon's motives based on Gibbon projecting his own motives onto the subjects of his history, and one person's motives is hardly a sound basis to form conclusions, and assign them to everyone else in the world.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Dragar. The property of light doesn't change when it strikes different objects.

First you said:

"Light is not reflected differently from mirrors than walls."

And now you said:

"Objects reflect light, and light is reflected in different ways based on the make-up or consistency of the object itself."

You said the opposite thing! Which one is true? And why do you keep changing your mind?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because we are using that light to see the object.

First, you haven't explained how we 'use the light' if we don't 'interpret the pattern'. Second, that doesn't explain why the reflected pattern of light being different matters. You said we don't 'interpret the pattern'. So explain how changing the pattern of light matters at all.

It's really easy for me to explain. Why can't you?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the theory.

Of course. Things like the existence of neutrinos, the fucking Theory of Relativity, or the scientific understanding of vision are nothing more than fuzzy guesswork, but everything about the completely hypothetical fairy tale of the Golden Age involving the complexity of billions of human participants is somehow mathematically certain.

LOL.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the theory, but as we know many theories in the field of physics and astrophysics have come and gone, so we will just have to wait and see whether this theory holds up to scrutiny.

So you think the same top scientists you are relying on to stamp "the brevat of truth" on Lessans ideas are such morons that they spend tons of time and money physically detecting and measuring something that may not exist at all and are only a theory?

How does that all work for ya?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you think the same top scientists you are relying on to stamp "the brevat of truth" on Lessans ideas are such morons that they spend tons of time and money physically detecting and measuring something that may not exist at all and are only a theory?

How does that all work for ya?

It's really funny that Peacegirl expects these scientists, who have gotten it wrong for all these years, to suddenly see the light (pun intended) and stamp her fathers ideas with their approval. Why would she even want those scientists to consider her fathers claims, she would get much more mileage consulting other crackpots to get their approval.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you think the same top scientists you are relying on to stamp "the brevat of truth" on Lessans ideas are such morons that they spend tons of time and money physically detecting and measuring something that may not exist at all and are only a theory?

How does that all work for ya?

There's so much unknown the deeper into the universe we get that it would not be a surprise if they found neutrinos didn't really exist or function the way scientists had once believed.

Neutrinos do not exist...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Of course. Things like the existence of neutrinos, the fucking Theory of Relativity, or the scientific understanding of vision are nothing more than fuzzy guesswork, but everything about the completely hypothetical fairy tale of the Golden Age involving the complexity of billions of human participants is somehow mathematically certain.

LOL.

He knew the complexity when it came to billions of human participants. Once he figured out the two-sided equation (the core of the discovery), he was able to apply these principles to every problem that exists in human relation.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eight: Until Death Do They Part

p. 344 To understand the magnitude of this mathematical
problem which requires for its solution that there be no collisions of
desire anywhere in the world, I shall offer you a problem as a
comparison and then show how it can be prevented.
A teacher has 15 students whom she takes on a walk 7 days of the
week, but because she believes in order and variety of company on
these daily strolls through the woods she decides to arrange them in
groups of three in a column formation. So every day, for seven days,
each student is never twice with the same student in a group which
means that if A has already been with B and C he can walk with D on
the next day, but since D has already been with E and F he must
select together one of the remaining students from G to O. When
you realize that these 15 students must all be arranged this way for 7
days, you can see it is not too simple a problem unless you see the
relations. Now just compare these 15 students whose desires do not
conflict on these walks (there is no collision) with the billions of
people in the world who God is going to direct so there will never be
any collisions of desire.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's so much unknown the deeper into the universe we get that it would not be a surprise if they found neutrinos didn't really exist

Yes it would. It would be a huge surprise. Are you stupid or something?

Fermilab recently found neutrinos and antineutrinos might have slightly different properties, contrary to expectations. Guess what they called it?

Surprising!

(That article then talks about how more recent experiments have found things are actually as we expected.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

First you said:

"Light is not reflected differently from mirrors than walls."

And now you said:

"Objects reflect light, and light is reflected in different ways based on the make-up or consistency of the object itself."

You said the opposite thing! Which one is true? And why do you keep changing your mind?

First, you haven't explained how we 'use the light' if we don't 'interpret the pattern'. Second, that doesn't explain why the reflected pattern of light being different matters. You said we don't 'interpret the pattern'. So explain how changing the pattern of light matters at all.

It's really easy for me to explain. Why can't you?

We see through light, so the pattern is important in what we see. The only difference is that we are already within the field of view of the object if the object is seen, therefore light is already at the eye. We are not waiting for light to arrive. It doesn't mean we don't need the pattern of light to see and that the pattern doesn't mean anything.