A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yeah, because you were just on the verge of being reasonable and rational, right? You lying dumbass sack of shit. GTFO.

No, you GTFO. Why are you even here? You're a nasty son of a #*$* who can't deal with the fact that you could be wrong, so you're taking it out on me. Well, hello.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yes, you told me that. I'm asking: Why?

You are refusing to answer.

I think you're making this up as you go along! All this 'pattern of light' stuff having to be at the eye is brand new!

You can't even explain mirrors, can you?

I did answer and I answered adequately. The problem is that you are basing your calculations on the belief that we are waiting for light to arrive to see something. This is false. I really do give up unfortunately. I could answer everybody and they will say I didn't answer them. Then we will need a recording to prove that I answered them. I am not interested in being Sherlock Holmes on top of what I am already dealing with.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We discussed this before. Thanks for the correction but I'll probably forget it again because it's so trivial and only a person who is a stickler for correct grammar would even notice.

I said nothing about your grammar. The correction had to do with your failure to use the correct words. The words you did use meant something other than what you intended to convey. A lot of other people make that same mistake. That still doesn't make it right.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you GTFO. Why are you even here? You're a nasty son of a #*$* who can't deal with the fact that you could be wrong, so you're taking it out on me. Well, hello.

You deserve everything you get when you're being as rude, dishonest, and disingenuous as you are at the moment. Try addressing our points instead of using feigned indignation as an excuse for continuing with the same pathetic avoidance you've been engaging in ever since you started here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I said nothing about your grammar. The correction had to do with your failure to use the correct words. The words you did use meant something other than what you intended to convey. A lot of other people make that same mistake. That still doesn't make it right.

I agree with your correction, but in the scheme of things it is irrelevant when we're talking about how to bring peace to our world. I really don't believe people would give a shit if I said "I could care less" or "I couldn't care less" if they knew these principles could prevent death and destruction. Do you have a problem with that?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did answer and I answered adequately. The problem is that you are basing your calculations on the belief that we are waiting for light to arrive to see something. This is false. I really do give up unfortunately. I could answer everybody and they will say I didn't answer them. Then we will need a recording to prove that I answered them. I am not interested in being Sherlock Holmes on top of what I am already dealing with.

Given that this is not a spoken medium a recording would be useless. Fortunately we do have a written record of your failure to actually answer the question. It is right here in this thread.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with your correction, but in the scheme of things it is irrelevant when we're talking about how to bring peace to our world. I really don't believe people would give a shit if I said "I could care less" or "I couldn't care less" if they knew these principles could prevent death and destruction. Do you have a problem with that?

I couldn't care less.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did answer and I answered adequately.

Liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is that you are basing your calculations on the belief that we are waiting for light to arrive to see something.

No, we are asking how the light gets to be at the retina before it has had time to travel there. And you have no answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really do give up unfortunately.

Oh, for realz this time?? How are we to tell the difference between this and your endless fake concessions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I could answer everybody and they will say I didn't answer them. Then we will need a recording to prove that I answered them.

If only our posts could be somehow saved and recorded on previous pages for us to search or refer back to!

You really are a colossal moron.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not interested in being Sherlock Holmes on top of what I am already dealing with.

Explain to us again how you have time to bitch and moan for hours here each day, but can't spend five minutes answering relevant questions which you agree apply to your own batshit crazy non-account?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you GTFO. Why are you even here? You're a nasty son of a #*$* who can't deal with the fact that you could be wrong, so you're taking it out on me. Well, hello.

Now that is rich, Peacegirl accusing someone else that they can't deal with the possibility that they could be wrong, when she has never accepted the possibility that her father could have been wrong. Well I've got news for her, Lessans was wrong! Not just a little wrong, but colossally batshit crazy wrong, as only a totally loony buffoon can be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You have obviously misunderstood what I have written, I said that you are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, in that is what you believe. I don't believe that you are correct in what you believe, and your participation in this thread proves it, unless feeding your martyr complex is giving you greater satisfaction, which makes you a masochistic. I am not moving in a direction of greater satisfaction, there are many other things that I would be doing that would accomplish that, but I am restricted for one reason or another. Sparing with you is definitely not satisfying, but it is amusing. My only possibility of satisfaction would be when you return to reality.

Oh really? You have understood nothing. Whatever the reason someone does something does not contradict the law of greater satisfaction. You ARE MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION, even if you are restricted by the alternatives that are limited by your individual circumstances. Where did he ever say that you weren't restricted by things in your environment that would compel you to choose something another person would not? This is exactly why your will is not free which is obvious to most people. Why are you lying by attributing things he never said or never intended? Sparring with me is satisfying to you in some way, or you wouldn't be doing it.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did answer and I answered adequately. The problem is that you are basing your calculations on the belief that we are waiting for light to arrive to see something.

What does that have to do with anything I asked?

I asked: why does the pattern of light matter since we don't 'interpret' that pattern, according to you?

There's nothing about 'waiting for light to arrive' here.

You really can't explain mirrors! I think you are just making stuff up as you go along.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

What does that have to do with anything I asked?

I asked: why does the pattern of light matter since we don't 'interpret' that pattern, according to you?

There's nothing about 'waiting for light to arrive' here.

You really can't explain mirrors! I think you are just making stuff up as you go along.

The pattern of light matters because it is the pattern that strikes our eyes which we then look through to see the object. In contrast, we are not decoding the pattern of light to form an image in our brains.

[LadyShea]

The pattern of light matters because it is the pattern that strikes our eyes which we then look through to see the object. In contrast, we are not decoding the pattern of light to form an image in our brains.

If we are seeing the object which is illuminated why does light need to strike our eyes in a pattern?

When did you change your mind about light? Do you agree now that light reflects off an object in a pattern? Is the pattern partial spectrum or full spectrum? How far does the pattern extend, or does it travel? What happens to the pattern if there are no eyes around for it to strike?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The pattern of light matters because it is the pattern that strikes our eyes...

The same is true of walls, not just mirrors. I'm asking you to explain the difference. If we're not decoding the pattern, why does it matter the reflected pattern is different from walls and mirrors?

Why can't you answer this very simple question, instead of repeating yourself or making things up?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If we are seeing the object which is illuminated why does light need to strike our eyes in a pattern?

When did you change your mind about light? Do you agree now that light reflects off an object in a pattern? Is the pattern partial spectrum or full spectrum? How far does the pattern extend, or does it travel? What happens to the pattern if there are no eyes around for it to strike?

I never changed my mind LadyShea. Obviously the nonabsorbed photons (or the pattern of light) have to be at the eye. No one ever said light doesn't travel. If there are no eyes around for the light to strike, the pattern continues. I know I have flip flopped on this because I, myself, am trying to figure out how it works in response to these questions. It doesn't mean it can't work. I believe the confusion has come about because Lessans said the image is not reflected. I don't think he meant that light doesn't strike and bounce off of the object. Although we know light strikes the object and the object reflects that light, if the eyes are efferent (and I say IF because science hasn't yet confirmed it, but that doesn't make it invalid), we are not decoding the pattern of light into an image as it strikes our eyes. Again, this does not mean light isn't traveling, but light itself is neutral, so to speak. It is not bringing us the world through its properties; it is providing the bridge between us and the external world by connecting us to it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously the nonabsorbed photons (or the pattern of light) have to be at the eye.

So where do they come from and how do they get to the eye?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

The same is true of walls, not just mirrors. I'm asking you to explain the difference. If we're not decoding the pattern, why does it matter the reflected pattern is different from walls and mirrors?

Why can't you answer this very simple question, instead of repeating yourself or making things up?

I answered you already. Patterns of light get reflected, so what is your point in bringing this up again?

A mirror is essentially a plate of glass coated with a thin film of metal, such as silver. At the atomic scale, metals are a crystal network of atoms whose outermost electrons dissociate and wander with high mobility through the network. These mobile “conduction” electrons are the source of electrical conductivity in metals, and when light attempts to penetrate a metal, they “vibrate in such a way” that an opposing electrical field is created, canceling the electric field of light and prohibiting any of its colors from entering beyond a few atomic layers. When that occurs, the light has been effectively reflected from the surface of the metal.

In addition, the smoothness of a mirror’s glass and metal coating ensure that this surface reflection is specular, says Livingston. As a result, rays of light bounce “like tennis balls,”, always maintaining an angle of reflection to the mirror’s surface, that matches in value the rays’ angle of incidence. Rays of light originating from a person’s ear, nose, and eyebrow, will “reflect with the same angle” off a smooth mirror surface and maintain their relative orientation, thus preserving the image that our eyes will perceive.

Why doesn’t a plain, white piece of paper reflect light, but a mirror does? | MIT School of Engineering

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So where do they come from and how do they get to the eye?

When you stop calling me dingbat, I may answer you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you stop calling me dingbat, I may answer you.

No you won't. I've been asking the same question of you for over five years, and you've never been able to answer it at all, no matter how polite we are with you. Not once. You've proven beyond any doubt that you will not and cannot answer this question at all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never changed my mind LadyShea.

sure you have. You said for a long time that reflected light wasn't in a pattern and didn't travel

The nonabsorbed photons (or the pattern of light) have to be at the eye. No one ever said light doesn't travel. If there are no eyes around for the light to strike, the pattern continues. I know I have flip flopped on this because I, myself, am trying to figure out how it works in response to these questions. It doesn't mean it can't work. I believe the confusion has come about because Lessans said the image is not reflected. I don't think he meant that light doesn't strike and bounce off of the object. Although we know light strikes the object and the object reflects that light, if the eyes are efferent (and I say IF because science hasn't yet confirmed it, but that doesn't make it invalid), we are not decoding the pattern of light into an image as it strikes our eyes. Again, this does not mean light isn't traveling, but light itself is neutral, so to speak. It is not bringing us the world through its properties; it is providing the bridge between us and the external world by connecting us to it.

[erimir]

What exactly is the importance of believing in this efferent vision bullshit anyway?

Does the "golden age" depend on this in any way?

If not, why do you give a shit?

Is it just because you can't stand the idea that your precious beloved dad was completely wrong about something?

There's no scientific evidence for efferent vision and plenty of evidence that disproves it. Why can't you just let it fucking go?

Or will the entire edifice of the revolution in thought, the two-sided equation (because normal equations have one or three sides?), and the golden age and all the rest come tumbling down if you admit your dad was not infallible? And that sometimes he spoke about things he didn't understand?

Get the fuck over it. Everyone's dad is wrong sometimes and yours is no different. (In fact, he's wrong a lot more than most dads.)

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered you already. Patterns of light get reflected, so what is your point in bringing this up again?

And yet that wasn't my question. My question is: why does the differing pattern matter given that we don't interpret this pattern?

You keep evading this. Why? Mirrors should not be so hard to explain.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? You have understood nothing. Whatever the reason someone does something does not contradict the law of greater satisfaction. You ARE MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION, even if you are restricted by the alternatives that are limited by your individual circumstances. Where did he ever say that you weren't restricted by things in your environment that would compel you to choose something another person would not? This is exactly why your will is not free which is obvious to most people. Why are you lying by attributing things he never said or never intended? Sparring with me is satisfying to you in some way, or you wouldn't be doing it.

There is no law of greater satisfaction, that is all a fiction invented by Lessans to justify his claim of no free will. I do not always move in the direction of greater satisfaction in spite of what you father claims, I give your opinion no credence as it is all based on what your father has written. You can't think for yourself at all. I believe I have free will, by my definition, you have even said we live in a free will environment, how can that be unless we actually have free will. And why would anyone give that up? just to live in a world of virtual slavery. Sparring with you is amusing, not satisfying, till you come back to reality.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Dragar

If we're not decoding the pattern, why does it matter the reflected pattern is different from walls and mirrors?

Why can't you answer this very simple question, instead of repeating yourself or making things up?

I think that there are two likely answers as to why she can't answer the question.

1. Efferent vision provides no answer to the question.

2. She doesn't understand the question.

These two answers are not mutually exclusive.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did answer and I answered adequately. The problem is that you are basing your calculations on the belief that we are waiting for light to arrive to see something.

Peacegirl, you admit that there is a "pattern of light" that is at the retina when we see an object. That pattern is the image that is recorded in the eyes, sent to the brain, and interpreted as an image of the object seen. So now you are endorsing afferent vision, are you ready to abandon efferent vision?