A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has everything to do with what I said Dragar.

Thanks for elaborating, peacegirl. Thanks also for answering my questions. You're clearly not trying to evade or weasel at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the *#$*$( are you talking about now in an effort to discredit my father? Obviously the eyes and brain are connected through the optic nerve whether the brain uses these impulses to see in real time (which is plausible), or to interpret them in delayed time (which is the present theory).

In either case the impulses are only sent to the brain after the light has contacted the retina, and the image will be that of an object as it was when the light left the object and traveled to the eye, afferent vision. How do you claim that the brain can take impulses of data from the past and project it to the present?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the *#$*$( are you talking about now in an effort to discredit my father? Obviously the eyes and brain are connected through the optic nerve whether the brain uses these impulses to see in real time (which is plausible), or to interpret them in delayed time (which is the present theory). Sorry Spacemonkey but your effort to use this against Lessans is falling flat.

BTW, you just contradicted yourself, first you claim that the brain doesn't translate the impulses into images, and then you claim that the brain does use the impulses to form images in real time. I really don't think you know what you are trying to say, you're just making stuff up on the spot.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has not been tested in accordance with Lessans' claim, or even why he made this claim in the first place. You don't even understand the details of his observations, so how can you investigate it fairly? I am not the one who keeps bringing this subject up. You're the one lying as you constantly accuse me of.

You know, there are times when your willful ignorance, your rank hypocrisy, and your constant lying are downright annoying.

We can prove our claims. All you can do in response is stick your fingers in your ears and whine, "Nuh uh!" while denying reality itself.


When one of us goes to considerable length to provide you with exactly what you ask for, your response is to dissemble, move the goalposts, and when all else fails, just flat-out lie.


And then you have the gall to whine about the fact that people dislike your disrespectful, dishonest and hypocritical ways?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has not been tested in accordance with Lessans' claim, or even why he made this claim in the first place.

You don't even understand the details of his observations, so how can you investigate it fairly?

The trick here is that Peacegirl is demanding tests that are biased in such a way as to prove Lessans correct, but this is all but impossible because any honest test will prove her father wrong.

How can anyone understand or investigate Lessans observations when the details of those observations have never been revealed, not in this thread or in the book. Peacegirl and Lessans have never verified that there ever were any observations to investigate. That is one of the most outrageous accusations that Peacegirl could make, and she does it regularly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You know, there are times when your willful ignorance, your rank hypocrisy, and your constant lying are downright annoying.

If I'm that annoying to you, I'm not forcing you to be here.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

We can prove our claims. All you can do in response is stick your fingers in your ears and whine, "Nuh uh!" while denying reality itself.

I am not sticking my fingers in my ears and whining. It is YOU who won't accept the fact that in spite of what you claim is absolute proof, Lessans saw it differently based on his observations. Until his observations are proven to be without merit (which no one has done), I will believe that he was right. You can call me willfully ignorant until the cows come home. When he is proven to be right, I hope you have the decency to say I'm sorry.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

When one of us goes to considerable length to provide you with exactly what you ask for, your response is to dissemble, move the goalposts, and when all else fails, just flat-out lie.

And then you have the gall to whine about the fact that people dislike your disrespectful, dishonest and hypocritical ways?

I appreciate your original link to NASA. I am not convinced that the eyes are a sense organ. That is the only claim he made --- nothing more --- and you're all going ballistic.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is the only claim he made --- nothing more --- and you're all going ballistic.

You're lying again.

And the NASA link provides photos which demonstrate that we do not see in real time. Ergo, the claim that we see in "real time" is disproved.


Are you going to have the honesty to admit that it has been demonstrated that Lessans was wrong about this? Of course not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're lying again.

And the NASA link provides photos which demonstrate that we do not see in real time. Ergo, the claim that we see in "real time" is disproved.


Are you going to have the honesty to admit that it has been demonstrated that Lessans was wrong about this? Of course not.

No, because I don't think it has been demonstrated that Lessans was wrong. If a comet hits a planet, it is obvious that until there is enough light present, we will not be able to see the event which only means the event is too far. We would be able to see the explosion from a probe that was much closer to the event because the conditions of size and luminosity would be met. This does not disprove his claim.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because I don't think it has been demonstrated that Lessans was wrong. If a comet hits a planet, it is obvious that until there is enough light present, we will not be able to see the event which only means the event is too far. We would be able to see the explosion from a probe that was much closer to the event because the conditions of size and luminosity would be met. This does not disprove his claim.

Lessans has been proven wrong many times and the Shoemaker-Levi comet is just one example.

The conditions of size and luminosity were met by the fragments of the comet before it hit, and more so after. Astronomers were tracking the comet with their telescopes long before the impact and watched the comet break up into fragments, each fragment being visible through the telescopes. Your objection fails again.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not sticking my fingers in my ears and whining. It is YOU who won't accept the fact that in spite of what you claim is absolute proof, Lessans saw it differently based on his observations. Until his observations are proven to be without merit (which no one has done), I will believe that he was right. You can call me willfully ignorant until the cows come home. When he is proven to be right, I hope you have the decency to say I'm sorry.

No-one can prove Lessans observations wrong because no-one knows what those observations were. Neither you nor your father have ever specified what he observed, or when, or under what conditions. Until those details are presented no-one can do anything but doubt the accuracy of those observations.

I do hope you aren't holding your breath till your father is proven correct, that will be a very long time, perhaps an eternity, or in another Universe. If your father is proven right, I will be selling hot chocolate in hell, while others are ice skating.

[The Lone Ranger]

Heck, the impacts on Jupiter were so bright and so energetic that even the Voyager 2 probe, which was headed out of the Solar System and was more than 4 billion miles from Jupiter at the time was able to monitor the impacts.

And guess what? It didn't record the impacts in "real time" either. Funny, that.

(They didn't bother to take actual photographs, since Voyager 2 was so far distant that even Jupiter would have appeared as just a pixel. But the Voyager 2 probe did monitor the impacts.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the *#$*$( are you talking about now in an effort to discredit my father? Obviously the eyes and brain are connected through the optic nerve whether the brain uses these impulses to see in real time (which is plausible), or to interpret them in delayed time (which is the present theory). Sorry Spacemonkey but your effort to use this against Lessans is falling flat.

How does the brain use these impulses to see in real time? Imagine a big traffic light seen from a great distance, and which has just changed from red to green. How does the brain use impulses from the optic nerve saying that red photons are hitting the retina to look out and see a green light?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

STOP THE BS!!!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

STOP THE BS!!!

Honestly answer the questions and the posts will stop. Continue to evade and ignore, and the posts will continue.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

STOP THE BS!!!

Stop the lies and evasion.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This part of YOUR account is what these questions are asking you about. They are not based on the afferent account, and do not make any afferent assumptions. Please answer them from the efferent perspective based only on your own account.

Five words and you're done. Is that so hard?

[thedoc]

"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." -Paul Johnson

It's a pity that Lessans didn't see this quote, all his claims have been tested many times even before he wrote them down. A little education could have saved Lessans years of wasting his time writing a book full of fallacies.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Dragar

That's an unrelated definition of the word related to displays. It's nothing to do with what we're talking about, or what you said.

And you didn't answer my question: why did you say 'no resolution' if you think it means any of these definitions you keep producing without understanding?

Maybe it's like when an electron and positron collide and produce two pixels.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Maybe it's like when an electron and positron collide and produce two pixels.

Maybe she means Pixies, that would be more in keeping with her other claims.

[lyrical]

Peacegirl, I am interested in hearing more about the revelations in your book. First though, please answer spacemonkey's 5 questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How does the brain use these impulses to see in real time? Imagine a big traffic light seen from a great distance, and which has just changed from red to green. How does the brain use impulses from the optic nerve saying that red photons are hitting the retina to look out and see a green light?

The second the light changed, the green wavelengths would be at the retina allowing the brain to see the green light. The optic nerve is the connection between the brain, eyes, and the external world but does not send red impulses before green causing a delay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by lyrical

Peacegirl, I am interested in hearing more about the revelations in your book. First though, please answer spacemonkey's 5 questions.

Lyrical, why do I think you're playing me? I have answered Spacemonkey's questions and that should not be a prerequisite to your desire to understand the core of his discovery, which no one seems to be interested in. I don't want to discuss the eyes anymore.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lyrical, why do I think you're playing me? I have answered Spacemonkey's questions and that should not be a prerequisite to your desire to understand the core of his discovery, which no one seems to be interested in. I don't want to discuss the eyes anymore.

STOP FUCKING LYING!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The second the light changed, the green wavelengths would be at the retina allowing the brain to see the green light. The optic nerve is the connection between the brain, eyes, and the external world but does not send red impulses before green causing a delay.

How does light of green wavelength get to the retina before it has had time to get there from the traffic light by traveling? Where did it come from?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How does light of green wavelength get to the retina before it has had time to get there from the traffic light by traveling? Where did it come from?

HOW???? THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT OF VISION. YOU ARE TRAPPED IN THE AFFERENT ACCOUNT. WHAT A JOKE!