A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Hello, is anybody there?

The debate was lost by Lessans and peacegirl in 1961, everything else has been wheel spinning and kicking up dust to obscure the truth that 'Decline and Fall of All Evil' is nonsensical fiction.

What are you talking about doc? You are the least individual to tell anyone what is truth or fiction when you have not read the book? You have to be kidding me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

On a bright note, we have reached Page 192. You all know what that means: Party time is getting closer.

Let's have a reality check. I don't mean to ruin the party, but it's not a bright note for me. It's a sad note that all this time has gone by and the stubborness in here has absolutely ruined Lessans chance of even being understood. So, yes, let's have a party, but when the party's over, there will be a ruination of what this man stood for.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Pecegirl, the problem is that a camera is designed and built to detect light - only light. Cameras were designed and built on the physical properties of light, and the chemistry of light sensitive chemicals. Denying that a camera works any other way is to throw out large portions of our understanding of physics and chemistry - which work now as is and without any known flaws.

To suggest that we see objects in real time and without using the information in light, suggests that cameras will not record the same thing as what you're seeing when viewing very distant objects.

Where is the flaw in that reasoning?

Cameras will record the same thing if efferent vision is true, because all the camera needs is the object that the camera's lens is focusing on, and the light which gives the camera the ability to develop a negative. The light is still mixing with chemicals on the film (of course I'm using the old time cameras just to make it easier to understand, but the same principle works regardless of what type of camera is used). There's no contradiction here whatsoever.

In other words, a camera works by detecting light as it is being reflected from an object. Even though the image is created due to light [only], the object or image has to be present within the camera's field of view (i.e, it has to be bright enough and large enough to be picked up by the camera's lens). The camera's lens is not aimed at the light; it's aimed at, and focussed on, the object or image that the photographer wants to capture. Therefore, the camera is not taking a picture of lightwaves (even though those lightwaves are the condition that allows a picture to form), without the object or image from which those lightwaves emanate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

One more time, and this time I'll type slow and large for you. I read the book, I understand what Lessans was trying to say. I don't agree with him and I think he was wrong. Get over yourself.

GUESS WHAT DOC??? I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. YOU ARE A LIAR DOC. YOU KNOW IT AND I KNOW IT. BUT WE'LL KEEP IT A BIG FAT SECRET. I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE MESSED UP BECAUSE OF COGNITIVE/DISSONANCE. I LIKE YOU TOO MUCH.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that.

You, and Lessans, said that the reflected light of the moon would be seen instantaneously, along with the sun, when the sun is turned on, but that the reflected light of your neighbor could not be seen for eight and a half minutes. That is what you said.

And I am asking:

WHY would you have to wait eight and a half minutes to see the reflected light of your neighbor, when you see the reflected light of the moon instantaneously?

It's a very fucking simple question. The moon and your neighbor are both (give or take a couple of seconds, depending on where the moon is in its orbit relative to the earth and the sun) 8.5 light minutes distant from the sun. SO WHY WOULD THE REFLECTED LIGHT OF THE MOON SHOW INSTANTANEOUSLY BUT THE REFLECTED LIGHT OF THE NEIGHBOR SHOW EIGHT AND A HALF MINUTES LATER?

WHY?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's have a reality check. I don't mean to ruin the party, but it's not a bright note for me. It's a sad note that all this time has gone by and the stubborness in here has absolutely ruined Lessans chance of even being understood. So, yes, let's have a party, but when the party's over, there will be a ruination of what this man stood for.

Excellent! Rubbish should always be ruined.

[davidm]

Hey Peacegirl, just so you won't miss it, I quote myself:

Originally Posted by davidm

You, and Lessans, said that the reflected light of the moon would be seen instantaneously, along with the sun, when the sun is turned on, but that the reflected light of your neighbor could not be seen for eight and a half minutes. That is what you said.

And I am asking:

WHY would you have to wait eight and a half minutes to see the reflected light of your neighbor, when you see the reflected light of the moon instantaneously?

It's a very fucking simple question. The moon and your neighbor are both (give or take a couple of seconds, depending on where the moon is in its orbit relative to the earth and the sun) 8.5 light minutes distant from the sun. SO WHY WOULD THE REFLECTED LIGHT OF THE MOON SHOW INSTANTANEOUSLY BUT THE REFLECTED LIGHT OF THE NEIGHBOR SHOW EIGHT AND A HALF MINUTES LATER?

WHY?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. WHY??

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I do get it. I get it very, very well. I understand efferent vision and I understand the necessary consequences of it. You're the one who keeps contradicting yourself, you're the one who doesn't get it.

Efferent vision breaks the laws of physics, yet you stated it doesn't. So which is it?

LadyShea, it only breaks the laws of physics in regard to one thing only; and that is the belief of what is actually happening. Yes, if it is believed that light has to travel large distances and impinge on the photoreceptors, for the photoreceptors to respond to that light, then this would be breaking the laws of physics. My question is: Can light give information from afar, as long as it is bright enough and large enough to be seen? That is the 64 thousand dollar question.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you seriously prepared to throw out physics as well as biology based on Lessans' unsupported assertions? How do you suppose you can get a top scientist to do experiments on efferent vision, that you consider up to snuff, when you can't even explain the model in a way that makes it even possible without breaking all known physical laws?

But it does not have to break all laws of physics; only those that are the result of theories that do not pan out, if efferent vision is correct.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now that you've changed back to agreeing with Lessans, that cameras and telescopes can receive information instantaneously the same as eyes, you are even more in breach of physical laws.

Like I said, if the object in the field of view of the camera (or telescope) is visible, and the lightwaves reflecting off of that object is also visible and recorded, then we would get the same picture. No surprise at all, nor does it breach any laws of physics that have been proven. Nothing has been proven here except for a lot of theories built upon other theories.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As has been stated, cameras are designed to receive light and use the properties of the received light to create images. Telescopes use received light to magnify images. They are not eyes with a brain looking through them, so how did Lessans reckon they would work efferently like vision does?

You are right, they are not eyes with a brain, but as far as the mechanism upon which they work, they do coordinate, and are consistent with, the [theory] of efferent vision, and do not breach any laws of physics if it turns out that Lessans was right all along.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Peacegirl, the problem is that a camera is designed and built to detect light - only light. Cameras were designed and built on the physical properties of light, and the chemistry of light sensitive chemicals. Denying that a camera works any other way is to throw out large portions of our understanding of physics and chemistry - which work now as is and without any known flaws.

Obviously, the photoreceptors are responding to light, but that does not mean, when extended properly, that the photoreceptors are doing what scientists believe they are doing; being metamorphisized into a completely different chemical structure.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

To suggest that we see objects in real time and without using the information in light, suggests that cameras will not record the same thing as what you're seeing when viewing very distant objects.

Where is the flaw in that reasoning?

Who said we are not using the information? The only difference is that the information is out there (in real time, in the real world), instead of in here (in the brain).

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, it only breaks the laws of physics in regard to one thing only; and that is the belief of what is actually happening. Yes, if it is believed that light has to travel large distances and impinge on the photoreceptors, for the photoreceptors to respond to that light, then this would be breaking the laws of physics. My question is: Can light give information from afar, as long as it is bright enough and large enough to be seen? That is the 64 thousand dollar question.

HOW

is it seen?

If not the light impinging on the photoreceptors?


Oh, and peacegirl? Why would we see the reflected light of the moon instantaneously when the sun is turned on, along with the sun, but have to wait eight and a half minutes to see the reflected light of our neighbor, hmmm??

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, it only breaks the laws of physics in regard to one thing only; and that is the belief of what is actually happening. Yes, if it is believed that light has to travel large distances and impinge on the photoreceptors, for the photoreceptors to respond to that light, then this would be breaking the laws of physics. My question is: Can light give information from afar, as long as it is bright enough and large enough to be seen? That is the 64 thousand dollar question.

Originally Posted by davidm

HOW

is it seen?
If not the light impinging on the photoreceptors?

Actually, I don't think the light has to impinge on the photoreceptors (because nothing in the light would be converting into a chemical-electrical signal and going into the brain via the optic nerve. The light's only property in the case of efferent vision is to make the object or image visible so we can see the real world, not a delayed world of images that form in the brain. I know you think this breaches physics, but not if the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window.

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, and peacegirl? Why would we see the reflected light of the moon instantaneously when the sun is turned on, along with the sun, but have to wait eight and a half minutes to see the reflected light of our neighbor, hmmm??

Are you retarded David? Just wondering because you keep repeating the same thing over and over and expect a different answer.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course you can. You are actually seeing the light source in that instance. A road flare is the actual light source. A bright flashlight shining at you may be difficult to see the actual light source because of the light shining in your eyes, similar to a laser pen. But if that flashlight were to aim at a wall, for example, you would see the light that has traveled from the light source to the wall, which is delayed because that light has traveled a finite distance to another destination which is reflecting that light.

I didn't ask if you can see the flashlight, or the pen. If you can see the light from those sources blinking on/off at a distance are you seeing the light instantly? Let's make it a spotlight going into the air. Can you see those? I didn't ask about a wall or any other thing.

You call this not weaseling? You call this honest discourse? You are playing dumb.

You know that if you say yes, you can see the light at a distance instantly, you are admitting that you believe faster than light communication is possible? If faster than light communication was possible, any scientist would jump at the chance to prove it and achieve worldwide fame and a Nobel prize. Unfortunately it is not possible. It definitively disproves Lessans.

You will keep acting like an idiot and say "I didn't say that" or weasel around some more, but that's because you know I am right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Post #4320 page 173

Post 4556 page 183

Looks like a contradiction to me.

I was mistaken. The light has to be present in some form for the telescope to work, just as light has to be present in some form for a camera to work. Finally, light has to be present for an eye to see what's out there in the material world. That's what I meant by the telescope has to draw the light in. Obviously, when a camera is taking a picture, or a telescope is magnifying an object, the lens of that piece of equipment can draw light in, if sight is efferent because that would mean the light does not have to travel long distances, according to the afferent model, as was previously believed. No contradiction doc. I know you're upset because you want Lessans to be wrong in the worst way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't ask if you can see the flashlight, or the pen. If you can see the light from those sources blinking on/off at a distance are you seeing the light instantly? Let's make it a spotlight going into the air. Can you see those? I didn't ask about a wall or any other thing.

Yes, I'm seeing the light blinking on and off as it is occuring (if efferent vision is correct), but the light has definitely been delayed because it had to travel from its source, so, yes, I agree that light, just like sound, traveled from here to there, consequently, there was a time delay. This is not the same thing as seeing the light source from whence it came. Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You call this not weaseling? You call this honest discourse? You are playing dumb.

I am not weaseling or playing dumb LadyShea. I believe you are so entrenched with the idea that light goes into the brain to be interpreted, that you cannot grasp what I'm saying. It's like there is a huge block preventing you from being able to communicate. Same thing goes for David.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You know that if you say yes, you can see the light at a distance instantly, you are admitting that you believe faster than light communication is possible? If faster than light communication was possible, any scientist would jump at the chance to prove it and achieve worldwide fame and a Nobel prize. Unfortunately it is not possible. It definitively disproves Lessans.

You are saying that because light travels, and the speed of light is finite, we cannot be seeing the light source in real time. You are completely ignoring what efferent vision means, and why it can bypass the lightwaves that travel and show up somewhere else because the light source meets the requirements necessary to see it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with faster than light speed. I am so completely at a loss right now, I really think this is a lost cause. Idon't think there's going to be a common denominator here, not because of any fault of Lessans.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You will keep acting like an idiot and say "I didn't say that" or weasel around some more, but that's because you know I am right.

You are not right. Only time will tell who the real idiot is. If you can call me an idiot, backatcha!

[LadyShea]

FYI, scientists are working on faster than light communications, via quantum mechanics. Do you think if there was such a simple answer as efferent vision they would be mucking around in the much more complicated world of quantum entanglement and such?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegilr

You are doing exactly what David is doing. You are saying that because light travels, and the speed of light is finite, we cannot be seeing the light source in real time.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are completely ignoring what efferent vision is, and why it can bypass the lightwaves that travel and show up somewhere else.

I am not ignoring what efferent vision is, I am drawing a necessary conclusion from what efferent vision is, actually. If vision is efferent then we can communicate with light faster than the speed of light. That's what efferent vision dictates. That's the bypass

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

FYI, scientists are working on faster than light communications, via quantum mechanics. Do you think if there was such a simple answer as efferent vision they would be mucking around in the much more complicated world of quantum entanglement and such?

I think people can get very very confused if the first premise that everything must logicall follow, is taken for granted, and from there a lot of entanglement and false theories can persist and slowly become accepted as undeniable truth. And for anyone to disagree or contest those theories is looked at as a crackpot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying

I am not ignoring what efferent vision is, I am drawing a necessary conclusion from what efferent vision is, actually. If vision is efferent then we can communicate with light faster than the speed of light. That's what efferent vision dictates. That's the bypass

That's why Lessans gave the example regarding the sun being turned on, to show people that nothing that we are seeing comes from the lightwaves. It comes from the actual object from which the lightwaves are reflecting. If you don't get this, we are at a total and complete standstill. Actually, I really need this conversation regarding the eyes to come to a temporary halt, because nothing good is going to come from it. If we can't move on to the more important Chapter, then this thread has to close. I've invested so much time here, and all this effort on my part will be for naught, although I have learned a tremendous amount and I appreciate all the contributions everyone has made.

[LadyShea]

I do get it. I get it better than you do because I am able to follow Lessans line of reasoning to various necessary conclusions. If he was right, and you can prove it, you will turn the whole world upside down just with that bit of science. Faster than light speed communications using light? OMG!

So your wanting to discuss "more important" parts of the book cannot happen because Lessans chose to posit the biggest challenge to physics since Hawkings Paradox regarding information being destroyed in black holes. Unfortunately for you he didn't bother to do any math or science to support his idea, so you are stuck with what you have.

None of this is our fault, peacegirl. We didn't write the book. We didn't seek you out. And, most importantly, you don't get to choose what parts of the book are important or impactful to its readers. You don't get to frame the debate of any ideas presented from any source.

We don't close threads. So your choice is to walk away, or stay and keep having this discussion. No way are science minded people going to drop that topic, because it's the most important in the book.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, the photoreceptors are responding to light, but that does not mean, when extended properly, that the photoreceptors are doing what scientists believe they are doing; being metamorphisized into a completely different chemical structure.

Really? So a camera behaves exactly the way scientists would predict, based on our current knowledge of the physical properties of light, and you would claim that they don't understand how the camera works?

The effects of light on certain chemicals have been carefully observed in controlled experiment. Why is it that only Lessans observations count?

[mickthinks]

pg: This is what makes this whole thread so very unfortunate, and why I won't do it again. [from here]
mick: You mean, not of your own free will?
pg: If I choose not to do this again, it is because when comparing to do this or not to do this, it gives me greater satisfaction not to do this. [from here]
mick: Then surely, if that's true and your father's ideas were right, you would have stopped doing it?
pg: When I weigh the options of not coming back vs. coming back (in order to challenge the lies in here), I choose to come back, in the direction of greater satisfaction. [from here]

First you say you won't do this again because it gives you greater satisfaction not to do this. Then you say that you choose to come back in the direction of greater satisfaction. Can you see how that doesn't make sense?

[LadyShea]

You are saying that because light travels, and the speed of light is finite, we cannot be seeing the light source in real time. You are completely ignoring what efferent vision means, and why it can bypass the lightwaves that travel and show up somewhere else because the light source meets the requirements necessary to see it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with faster than light speed.

It has everything to do with the speed of light! If not only human eyes, but cameras and other instruments, can detect light at its source instantly, without having to await the photons to travel to its location, that necessarily means faster than light speed communication is possible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Excuse me, you bloody idiot, it is YOU who has completely changed your story today, from yesterday! That means your "theory" today, is DIFFERENT FROM what it was yesterday! In fact, a key prediction of the "theory" is now, today, the opposite of what it was yesterday! This clearly means either that the "theory" is the opposite today, of what it was yesteday, or that you yourself haven't understood any of your father's rubbish from Day One, and are just "winging it," to use your own words.

And you say that WE have to go back to the drawing board!

Serene in your ignorance, unruffled by facts, logic and reality, you go babbling and bombinating on, completely changing your story from one day to the next, and you say that WE have to go back to the drawing board!

I said I am wingin it, which only means I am trying to explain the principle of efferent vision as it relates to the varied questions that are being posed. If I made an accidental error in my explanation, I need to admit to my mistake. Does that mean the entire [theory] should be thrown out? Of course not, unless you're an idiot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It has everything to do with the speed of light! If not only human eyes, but cameras and other instruments, can detect light at its source instantly, without having to await the photons to travel to its location, that necessarily means faster than light speed communication is possible.

LadyShea, how can one's gaze at an object (in real time) be faster than the speed of light? Come on, be honest. I am trying to finish the questions that are on pages 92, 93, and 94. Everyone, please refrain from asking anymore questions on light and sight at this time, or I will be forced to ignore them. Maybe at a later date, I will resume the conversation, but right now, I hope you respect my wishes, as I need a break from this topic.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cameras will record the same thing if efferent vision is true, because all the camera needs is the object that the camera's lens is focusing on, and the light which gives the camera the ability to develop a negative. The light is still being recorded on film (of course I'm using the old time cameras just to make it easier to understand, but the same principle works regardless of what type of camera is used). There's no contradiction here whatsoever.

You do not understand how cameras work. When a film is exposed under controlled conditions, the bits of light that come in will physically strike the film, causing predictable reactions in the chemicals it was treated with. Those reactions depend upon the frequency of that light, and different parts of the frame of film will react differently based on the wavelength of the particular photons that struck it. Since the wavelength of light is determined by the objects that emitted or reflected it, as well as other factors such as motion, these reactions reproduce that information in the form of a picture.

Note two very important things here. First, film cameras do not develop negatives. Those are developed from the film after processing, and negatives must be further developed to produce the actual pictures, with some exceptions like the instant film famously invented and sold by Polaroid. This film works the same way, of course, but is treated in such a way that the picture will appear on the film itself.

The second is that it is the information contained in light that lets cameras do what they do. Even if all this wankery about efferent vision is 100% correct, it would not change the way film cameras work, and they would not work the same way as you claim the eyes and brain do. They will ONLY develop pictures based on the particular frequencies of photons that strike the film when it is exposed. This means that they MUST wait for the light from a distant object or event to arrive before they can photograph it. If you take the picture too early, it will only capture light that made the journey BEFORE the object or event was in that state or position, which means you will get a picture of that earlier state or position.

The reason everyone's harping on this is because it necessarily follows that, if our eyes and brain see efferently, we would see one state of affairs with the naked eye, while film cameras would take pictures of a different, past state of affairs, since that is the only light that has yet arrived for them to be exposed to. This demonstrably does not happen. What that means is that either everything we know about physics and chemistry, and the principles on which we designed and built film cameras that work exactly as predicted based on those principles, is completely wrong, or our eyes must also wait for the light just as a camera does.

Of course, the sad truth of the matter is that we understand how our eyes detect light and send that information to the brain, and indeed we understand how our brains handle that information and construct images from it, AT LEAST AS WELL as we understand how a film camera works.

Feel free to ignore all this, of course, I'm sure it is the path to greater satisfaction for you to do so, a path which you are compelled to take, after all.