A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Note to DoctorX:

Start rounding up those NBLs. Remember, we have made reservations for ten pages (200-209) for the party, which is now only 12 pages away.

[LadyShea]

I would never dispute anything in physics because I really don't know. The only thing I want to find out is if efferent vision is possible, and if it is, is it valid. Because people are trying to stump me at every turn, that's exactly what they've done. They know I'm not well versed in physics. But that still doesn't mean that efferent vision is impossible.

Physics proves efferent vision is impossible. The examples we are using are to demonstrate that to you, in a way that it is undeniable to use a phrase you'll appreciate.

Physics disproves- beyond any possibility of doubt - Lessans claims regarding what one would see if viewing the Earth from the vicinity of Rigel and how long it would take for one to see the sun were it suddenly turned on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why can't you answer the simple question I have asked? If you can see a flashing a light, are you seeing the light in real time, efferently, according to Lessans ideas? Yes or no?

Just to prevent more weaseling, a green laser pen can be seen up to a mile away at night, so assume I am using a green laser pen, with a full battery, at night from 50 yards away.

You are seeing that light in real time, even though the light had traveled five miles from its source.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light is being emitted from, let's say, a supernova that is so far away it cannot be seen, we will eventually see the light that is being emitted from the supernova, so you could say that the light is seen in the present, even though the source of that light has been here a long time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does this even mean? You said when we see an eye visible supernova we are seeing it immediately when it happens, rather than however many years later due to the distance.

I didn't explain that very well. I still maintain that we would see a supernova in real time because the emitted light is not what is reaching our eyes and giving us the image. That would be afferent vision, which is being disputed.

[Vivisectus]

I think no-one else wants to talk about this book. That is why you are still here. The kids are "too busy", but really they avoid this subject like the plague because to disagree with it means upsetting mum. They sound like smart kids. I am glad they are getting a good education.

Also, your father really laid this on you. I think that was a selfish thing of him to do. He should have left you to live your own life in stead of making you carry these impossibly grandiose ideas. I think he could not face the idea that he was actually not the savior he thought he was, and that his ideas were not that much of a revolution after all - and make no mistake, though his demeanor may have been humble, his ideas were anything but - so he laid it on you and your siblings. Selfish and obsessed with being right until the end.

Are they out there too, trying to convince people? What do they think?

It is nothing but a millstone around your neck, peacegirl. Put it down. You are just fine without being the custodian of perfect salvation, and while your dad had his foibles, I am sure he was a good guy even if he wasn't infallible. Why not allow the both of you to be human?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Physics proves efferent vision is impossible. The examples we are using are to demonstrate that to you, in a way that it is undeniable to use a phrase you'll appreciate.

Physics disproves- beyond any possibility of doubt - Lessans claims regarding what one would see if viewing the Earth from the vicinity of Rigel and how long it would take for one to see the sun were it suddenly turned on.

If you believe there's no way efferent vision is even possible, why are we discussing the possibility of efferent vision? There's absolutely no point, and will only serve to make me look like I'm a candidate for the booby hatch.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to answer because your intent is obvious. You are making a concerted effort to make me look stupid and in this kind of atmosphere, you will succeed.

Do you think you are fooling anyone with this bullshit? It's impossible for you to answer without conceding that Lessans was wrong, and that is the ONE thing you cannot do. You will deny (indeed, have denied) reality itself, if doing so is necessary to keep the idiot Lessans infallible in your eyes.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to answer because your intent is obvious. You are making a concerted effort to make me look stupid and in this kind of atmosphere, you will succeed.

I am asking you to support your own claims. This is the simplest and least tricky question you have been asked all thread! It's not even about lights on the moon or Mars or hypotheticals about the Sun!

I am asking you if you would see a bright flashing light, half a football field away, in real time according to Lessans.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have humility, and when I don't know something I will admit it. I have already admitted that I'm not a physicist. The only test that I didn't think was reliable was the one with the dog pushing the lever, or possibly the dog running over to his master (the one with the hat on). I would never dispute anything in physics because I really don't know. The only thing I want to find out is if efferent vision is possible, and if it is, is it valid. No one in here has proved him wrong, even though they think they have. They think that my denial that Lessans could be wrong is keeping me from knowing the truth. And of course who are the gatekeepers of that sacred truth? All of you. Because people have tried to stump me at every turn, it has been difficult because astronomy is not how Lessans came to his conclusions, therefore I'm winging it to try to keep your interest, but I know it's done the opposite. I will say it again: I'm not well versed in physics. But that still doesn't mean that efferent vision is impossible. I've said over and over that only empirical testing will give us the final verdict.

If you are not going to dispute physics than you must concede that afferent vision is how humans see things. The members of this forum do not need to prove lessans wrong, that has been done by the entire scientific community and all the research that has been done over the last few centuries. As has been stated scientists started examining vision with the theory that vision was somehow efferent, but the testing, examination, and expreimentation, proved that afferent vision was the correct theory. That you are not well versed in physics, biology, and science in general is obvious, that you refuse to gain any knowledge is also obvious, and that is why you will not, and cannot understand what is being presented as proof that afferent vision is true, efferent vision is false, and your Father, Lessans, was wrong in his reasoning and theories. His main failing was relying solely on himself for his "education" without the benefit of someone to correct him when he went wrong, and someone to lead him to the information that would have clarified and corrected many of his misconceptions. "Winging it" is a rather mild term for the statements that you have been coming up with.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you believe there's no way efferent vision is even possible, why are we discussing the possibility of efferent vision? There's absolutely no point, and will only serve to make me look like I'm a candidate for the booby hatch.

We're discussing it because you wanted to discuss Lessans ideas and we took you up on that. It's not out fault he included such insane claims in his work. The sad part is that the whole efferent vision thing wasn't even necessary.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think no-one else wants to talk about this book. That is why you are still here. The kids are "too busy", but really they avoid this subject like the plague because to disagree with it means upsetting mum. They sound like smart kids. I am glad they are getting a good education.

That's not why. I've just finished the final version. My kids want to read it. By the way, my son just called me and he passed his Boards. Yesssssssss!!!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, your father really laid this on you. I think that was a selfish thing of him to do. He should have left you to live your own life in stead of making you carry these impossibly grandiose ideas. I think he could not face the idea that he was actually not the savior he thought he was, and that his ideas were not that much of a revolution after all - and make no mistake, though his demeanor may have been humble, his ideas were anything but - so he laid it on you and your siblings. Selfish and obsessed with being right until the end.

Never never never never never did my father put a noose around my neck. Never did he pressure me into doing anything. One time he said, you'll have to carry the ball, but he said it in a lighthearted way, not in a demanding way. My god, if he couldn't say that to his own daughter, who could he say it to? It was his life's work. But if I never looked at the book again, he would never have blamed me or manipulated me into feeling guilty. That is the antithesis of what this book stands for.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Are they out there too, trying to convince people? What do they think?

No, because I never put it on them. My kids lead busy lives, although I'm sure when they have time, they will desire to share their grandfather's discovery with others.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is nothing but a millstone around your neck, peacegirl. Put it down. You are just fine without being the custodian of perfect salvation, and while your dad had his foibles, I am sure he was a good guy even if he wasn't infallible. Why not allow the both of you to be human?

Huh? What does that last sentence mean? I'm not human now? Oh my god, where are you coming from? You have misconstrued everything about this book, and the fact that everybody in here believes your quick synopsis of Chapters One and Two, and won't look into it any further, makes me realize that it is not me who has closed the door; it's the people in here who have closed the door to further investigation, and thrown away the key.

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.

Francis Bacon 1561-1626

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you believe that I'm being sincere?

Perhaps because I have difficulty believing that any sane and rational person would promote such a book, unless it was for monetary gain. The claims and ideas in the book are so completely off the wall and contrary to any reality that is known today, that the only person who could accept them would need to be completely unhinged or a dedicated religious fanatic. I have seen enough of your posts to know that you are not crazy, so there remains only the possability that you are a calculating, coniving con-artist, out to sell books as a scam to make money. So how are the books selling, is it working?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.

Francis Bacon 1561-1626

And some books are meant to be vomited out:

Wow, you have such bizarre delusions of grandeur, just like your father.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Are they out there too, trying to convince people? What do they think?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because I never put it on them. My kids lead busy lives, although I'm sure when they have time, they will desire to share their grandfather's discovery with others.

Viv meant your siblings, who Lessans also exhorted to carry on his work. Are your siblings helping you in any way?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Since peacegirl has me on ignore, but is trying to answer all our questions somebody ask her the obvious question:

Since your prediction that the pictures cameras take of heavenly bodies will differ from what humans see with their eyes, and they don't differ, what becomes of your "theory"?

Sure, anything for a fellow 'seeker after the truth', but now I'm confused, she says she's not ignoring anyone, but she claims to have put you on ignore and me at one time. How can that be, would that be an oxymoron? Or is it just her?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Sure, anything for a fellow 'seeker after the truth', but now I'm confused, she says she's not ignoring anyone, but she claims to have put you on ignore and me at one time. How can that be, would that be an oxymoron? Or is it just her?

She said she was putting me on Ignore (this is about the fourth time) and I couldn't care less if she keeps me on Ignore. I just want her nose rubbed in the question. Reality disagrees with a key prediction of her and Lessans. Now what?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making a concerted effort to make me look stupid and in this kind of atmosphere, you will succeed.

Whoa! is that an admission of guilt?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not why. I've just finished the final version. My kids want to read it. By the way, my son just called me and he passed his boards. Yesssssssss!!!

Congratulations on your son passing the boards. Does this mean his fellowship is complete? How many years of residency has it been?

[thedoc]

OK, 11 pages to go, can we agree on a few groung rules? Like during the 10 pages of party no 'shop talk', OK? - - So during the party only 'mindless drivel' as opposed to any serious discussion. - - - Wait a minute, this whole thread has been 'mindless drivel' ? - Shit! now what are we going to talk about?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

OK, 11 pages to go, can we agree on a few groung rules? Like during the 10 pages of party no 'shop talk', OK? - - So during the party only 'mindless drivel' as opposed to any serious discussion. - - - Wait a minute, this whole thread has been 'mindless drivel' ? - Shit! now what are we going to talk about?

[LadyShea]

Congrats to your son

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've just finished the final version.

Well I certainly hope you trimmed it a bit. With good editing you could say everything in about 150 pages, and that would still have some padding.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well I certainly hope you trimmed it a bit. With good editing you could say everything in about 150 pages, and that would still have some padding.

I'm assuming it's updated with peacegirl's own letter to President Obama demanding an audience.

[thedoc]

It occures to me that if Peacegirl was truly interested in promoting the principles in the book 'The decline and fall of all evil' she would take the message to the centers of evil in the world. I think, to be most effective, she should personally give the books to the Taliban, Kim Jong Il, and Muammar Quaddafi, for a start. I really don't think Obama is evil as much as inept, but thats just my opinion.

I would like to add she should give one to Brian, but I doubt he would read it.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I really don't think Obama is evil as much as inept, but thats just my opinion.

[Tangent--Ed.]I agree--nothing like "on the job training"--how is that Gitmo closing going for you? Hello? Hello? Anyways, I will give pathetic credit to the Moonbats and Lotus Eaters who are now stamping "War Criminal" on the Obama Che Guevara posters in the neighborhood.

At least, unlike peacegirl, they are consistent in their insanity.[/Tangent--Ed.]

--J.D.

[Kael]

Quoth peacegirl, emphasis mine:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Kael, your perspective is wrong. I have humility, and when I don't know something I will admit it. I have already admitted that I'm not a physicist. The only test that I didn't think was reliable was the one with the dog pushing the lever, or possibly the dog running over to his master (the one with the hat on). I would never dispute anything in physics because I really don't know.

Quoth peacegirl from a few pages back, emphasis mine:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From what I have seen, the tests that have anything to do with determining how the eyes function are in regard to afferent vision (there have been no tests on efferent vision because scientists believe it is a fact that we have afferent vision; similar to philosophers who didn't look behind the door of determinism because they believed free will proved determinism's falseness; “If there is an almost eternal recurrence of philosophies of freedom it is because direct perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning.”) so you can't go by those tests. Plus, I don't think they were reliable. I don't think they purposely skewed the results, but the test themselves were biased.

...