A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

I don't get to do anything, right, but you get to pull sentences out of context and make the book look foolish.

As if "....fall in love with her sexual organs" isn't objectification in any context.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As if "....fall in love with her sexual organs" isn't objectification in any context.

LadyShea, that just shows me how confused a person can get when he (or she) [god forbid I leave out she and you will take this out of context as well], does not read the prose correctly because it is not IN CONTEXT. So of course you have to post it again and again to give new readers a biased view of me. Weren't you the one who kept mentioning over and over that Lessans was my father? I'm sure you did this to bias everyone. Why is that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Jesus ... fucking ... Christ!

Yes, the light from the explosion is bright enough to be seen, when it fucking arrives on the earth. In the case of a star 1,000 light years away, that will be 1,000 years! To be "bright enough to be seen," the light must first ARRIVE!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO DAVID, YOU ARE WRONG IF EFFERENT VISION IS TRUE.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's the point!

You know nothing about the relevent science, yet you're convinced that it's all wrong.

A more breath-takingly arrogant and willfully-ignorant attitude than yours would be difficult to imagine.

I am not being arrogant or willfully ignorant. I am trying to answer as best I can. You know what it reminds me of? When I was little, we had puppies that got caught under the steps. The neighbor came over to help free the pups, but the only way to do this, we thought, was to break up the steps. About half way done, the pups crawled out of a small hole in the back of the steps that was not visible unless we had taken a more careful look. You are all chopping up the steps (i.e. trying to find the answer through logic, but you are not looking as carefully as you think). Lessans found his answer in a different way, just like the pups who saw a way out that no one else saw. That's why you can't imagine his answer could be correct.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the science does not discredit what Lessans is saying. Don't you get this Lone, or are you so caught up in your knowledge that you can't allow something new to cause a change in your thinking? I purposely capitalized my words not to be flamboyant, but to show exactly where there might be a flaw. If this flaw is corrected, this doesn't contradict physics whatsoever.

Read this post, at least twice to ensure you understand Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again - not agreeing must mean not understanding. That is arrogant nonsense unless you can support it, which neither you nor your father feel is necessary. You just call things astute or sound observations, and consider your say-so reason the believe enough.

I mentioned several objections to the observations that you were unable to deal with.

If I did, it was not on purpose. So repeat them Vivisectus, and I will answer when I get to your question. There are so many question in front of me, that I will be told that I'm avoiding questions. Do you see the trap. Probably not.

The fact that he was a very deep thinker was not my evidence of the soundness of this book.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is far from a fact, and you have indeed used it as a argument and said that if there was a mistake he would have spotted it - so there must not be one.

That's true, but not without a reason. You are acting like his defense is based on nothing more than an arbitrary decision to disagree with proven facts. This is NUTS VIVISECTUS, AND UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE, YOU WILL CONDEMN WITH A RESISTANCE THAT NO WOULD CAN PENETRATE, NOT EVEN GOD HIMSELF.

I know what you were doing, but it was not a fair analogy. There was support for the original statement that one of the justifications people unconsciously use --- if they are desiring to gain at someone else's expense (e.g. steal from someone, for example) --- is that they know that if they are caught, they will be blamed and punished, which gives them the advance justification they need in order to follow through with their desires. This is very much supported and the fact that you used such a lame analogy makes me think that you are doing what everyone else is doing; either pulling statements out of context, or looking for flaws and therefore not reading it with the intent of true understanding.

It is one of the legs of your fathers tripod - if it is not a condition, then we have not dealth with the problem of evil, because there is still a way that we can harm others and your fathers system falls down.

It is not supported at all as far as I am aware - can you point out where and how it is? Because you were unable to about 100 pages ago and resorted to saying "I don't know why or how it works, it just does".

So what you're saying is I was supposed to learn something, not you. Actually, I have learned a lot and am still learning, but nothing that anyone has offered has proven Lessans wrong on any count. That's the truth, even if no one at this point believes that efferent vision is possible.

All you have done is deny things - just like now, despite having been buried in simple empirical observations that make efferent, real-time vision impossible, you still claim there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the idea.[/QUOTE]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again - not agreeing must mean not understanding. That is arrogant nonsense unless you can support it, which neither you nor your father feel is necessary. You just call things astute or sound observations, and consider your say-so reason the believe enough.

The observations you made were totally without confirmation whatsoever. So we have to start over Vivisectus, without your crazy analogies that had nothing to do with his proof. I can't believe people would believe your analogy, and give up on a major discovery. But it could happen, and I am willing to accept the reality of what is.

Okay, I'll give you that. what is the mistake? Tell me Vivisectus? Is it your analogy; the one and only analogy you gave, or for that matter, anyone gave? Come on, get real here. Don't just try to make yourself right to reconcile the differences that are being presented. Otherwise, you are a fake.

It is one of the legs of your fathers tripod - if it is not a condition, then we have not dealth with the problem of evil, because there is still a way that we can harm others and your fathers system falls down.

It is not supported at all as far as I am aware - can you point out where and how it is? Because you were unable to about 100 pages ago and resorted to saying "I don't know why or how it works, it just does".

All you have done is deny things - just like now, despite having been buried in simple empirical observations that make efferent, real-time vision impossible, you still claim there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the idea.

Can we please let this topic rest? I am not going to win in here. The only way Lessans will be vindicated, as I said before, is if it's proven that the eyes cannot focus until other sense experience sends a message to the brain to look, through the eyes, at what it is experiencing.

[LadyShea]

For the sake of humanity?

[thedoc]

In the idea of efferent vision light is a condition of sight, so light needs to be present for the brain to look out thru the eyes to 'directly see the object'. It seems that the light is somehow a signal for the brain to look thru the eye to see the object. However this seeing is not in the light but is direct, and the knowledge of the object comes directly to the brain, the question is what is bringing the knowledge to the brain, the brain and the object are not in direct contact if there is some distance between them, what medium, carrying the information, bridges the gap instantly? If an object suddenly appears a very long way off (several light hours or days) and the light has not yet arrived on the Earth, what signals the brain to look at the object? Remember there was no light from this object on Earth before it appeared. Granted if there is a continuous stream of light the 'old light' could trigger the brain to look, but if the object suddenly appears there is no 'old light' and the 'new light' has not arrived, so there is nothing to trigger the brain to look for the object, so the brain would not be able to see it.

[Vivisectus]

Okay, I'll give you that. what is the mistake? Tell me Vivisectus? Is it your analogy; the one and only analogy you gave, or for that matter, anyone gave? Come on, get real here. Don't just try to make yourself right to reconcile the differences that are being presented. Otherwise, you are a fake.

The mistake is to think that no evil can be done under your fathers system, as was pointed out. There is no support for the idea that all premeditated harm can only be done if it is justified, and that blame is a necessary condition for justification.

There are 2 things wrong with your father position. Firstly, he provided no support for his position apart form his say-so. This is the reason I introduced the firemen-as-a-condition-for-fires spiel. It has the same level of support.

Secondly, he presents Harmful / Non-harmful as a binary proposition, which it clearly isn't - a deed can be harmful from the point of view of one person, not harmful according to another, beneficial to a third. An interesting example is the Inquisitor, doing harm to his victims for the sake of their immortal and eternal soul, which he sees as doing them good that far outweighs the temporary pain he causes.

This means that in your fathers system, we have not dealt with the problem of evil, as the cycle of harm and retaliation has not been stopped.

I know what you were doing, but it was not a fair analogy. There was support for the original statement that one of the justifications people unconsciously use --- if they are desiring to gain at someone else's expense (e.g. steal from someone, for example) --- is that they know that if they are caught, they will be blamed and punished, which gives them the advance justification they need in order to follow through with their desires. This is very much supported and the fact that you used such a lame analogy makes me think that you are doing what everyone else is doing; either pulling statements out of context, or looking for flaws and therefore not reading it with the intent of true understanding.

Still no sign of that support you mentioned here.

What the hell are you talking about Vivisectus? And YOU are that smart that you are denying what someone has researched, read, and confirmed, for thirty years? Ummmm, who is the crazy one here? You people figure it out. I hate that it has come to this, but I will fight back an eye for an eye, if I am forced to, for the sake of truth which, by the way, you have NO monopoly on.

There you go again. You use your father as an authority to bolster the credibility of your father. It is like saying "This man is the Messiah! I know this, because he told me so, and the Messiah wouldn't lie!"

It is immaterial how long your father spent researching this. It is also immaterial how smart you think he was. What matters are the things he wrote - and as you can see, there are some problems: the fact that the problem of evil has not been dealt with, and the fact that efferent sight is impossible, to name just two.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO DAVID, YOU ARE WRONG IF EFFERENT VISION IS TRUE.

Hey, peacegirl, just what the fuck is "efferent vision," anyway? Efferent vision; how the fuck does it work? Explain it in detail, please!

Oh, wait. You've already said four times

I DON'T KNOW!

Well, since you don't actually KNOW how efferent vision, you know, WORKS, how do you know that what I said is wrong?

But, of course, as has already been demonstrated -- but with you of course the information zipped through one ear and out the other -- regardless of how vision works, instantaneous information transfer is not possible in the physical world. Therefore there CANNOT be instantaneous seeing.

Oh, and then there is this problem: how can vision be "efferent" (whatever the fuck that means) when we know that the anatomy of the optic nerve is afferent? Got an answer for that one, peacegirl?

Oh, and peacegirl? Are you going to answer my question about the reflected moonlight, or are you going to continue to act like a dishonest weasel?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the science does not discredit what Lessans is saying.

EVERYTHING about science discredits his claims. They make his claims IMPOSSIBLE.

His claims are discredited by relativity theory, quantum mechanics, evolution, the physiology and anatomy of the eye, the nature of light, the science of optics, and the energetic limits placed on information processing and transfer, just to cite a few examples.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
you are denying what someone has researched, read, and confirmed, for thirty years?

That Lessans reasearched, and read, is not in question, however there is no confirmation and his understanding is also in question.

Thirty years may be significant in one lifetime but there have been many Alchemists who labored for centuries to discover how to transmute base metals into gold or to discover the 'Elixor of perpetual youth'. They all failed because the belief was wrong, but their work did lay the foundation for modern chemestry, which was not their original intent. So Lessans has failed to eliminate evil, his main false belief no matter how noble, but if he had not gone completely over the edge with his claim of efferent vision the debate might have settled on a more realistic and fruitful subject of free will and determinism. The sad part is that after discrediting himself with these rather peripherial concepts it is unlikely that anyone will seriously consider his other ideas.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the hell are you talking about Vivisectus? And YOU are that smart that you are denying what someone has researched, read, and confirmed, for thirty years?

Wow, 30 fucking years of research!

You'd think during those long 30 years, sooner or later it would have occurred to the daft old idiot something that would have occurred to a first-grader in about ten seconds:

It is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE that the reflected light of the moon be seen instantaneously, along with the sun, when the sun is turned on, but that the reflected light of your neighbor not be seen for eight and a half minutes.

[Vivisectus]

If I did, it was not on purpose. So repeat them Vivisectus, and I will answer when I get to your question. There are so many question in front of me, that I will be told that I'm avoiding questions. Do you see the trap. Probably not.

There are some in my last post. There were 2 regarding efferent sight in the one before.

That's true, but not without a reason. You are acting like his defense is based on nothing more than an arbitrary decision to disagree with proven facts. This is NUTS VIVISECTUS, AND UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE, YOU WILL CONDEMN WITH A RESISTANCE THAT NO WOULD CAN PENETRATE, NOT EVEN GOD HIMSELF.

That is nonsense. I am saying that your only argument in favor of some of his statements is that you feel he was a very clever fellow indeed, and that he spent a lot of time on his writings. This was your response to me pointing out there is no support for your fathers assertions regarding blame and justification a while ago.

Funnily enough you did it again, when you asked me if I felt I was clever enough to doubt work that your father spent 30 years researching.

Apparently you still consider "because my father said so" a valid and conclusive rebuttal.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For the sake of humanity?

For the sake of truth LadyShea. I understand your hatred for religion. I get it, but don't use your hatred for anything that smells of god, to reject anything that can lead to the truth, even if the word god is used in context.

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. . .
But the science does not discredit what Lessans is saying. Don't you get this Lone, or are you so caught up in your knowledge that you can't allow something new to cause a change in your thinking? . . . .

But Lessan's theory that vision is efferent is not "new." Efferent theories of vision, like the notion that the Earth is flat, were widely believed for centuries, and were abandoned only after empirical science made it clear that things simply couldn't work that way: Ancient Visions.

The nature of the light and the operation of the eye seem easy to understand for us today: our familiarity with cinema and photography gives us a feeling for light wich ix close to what contemporary physics teaches. People know that light propagates in straight lines and that it can be focussed by a lens to form an "image". People know that the eye functions like a camera, with an image of the outside world forming on the retina situated on the inside back surface of the ocular globe. But curiously, these concepts were very hard to come by. Thus, even though it should have been possible to understand the optics of the eye at the time of Euclid, 400 years before Christ, or at least at the time of Ptolemy (second century AD)[1], it was more than fifteen hundred years before an adequate theory of light and vision finally emerged. Why[2]?

One of the factors that contributed was probably the fact that four of the most respected thinkers of western civilization: Plato, Aristotle, Euclid and Galen, had all opted, in their own different ways, for an incorrect theory of vision.

It is Lessans, not any of the folks here, who has refused to allow "something new" to cause a change in his (scientifically naive) thinking.

[Vivisectus]

What the hell are you talking about Vivisectus? And YOU are that smart that you are denying what someone has researched, read, and confirmed, for thirty years?

Confirmed his findings did he? It is a pity he did not chose to share the experiments that he used to confirm them. This could all have been settled by now and the revolution well under way!

If your fathers confirmations were anything like the rest of his work, they most likely constituted of nothing more than him coming to the conclusion that he agrees with himself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wow, 30 fucking years of research!

You'd think during those long 30 years, sooner or later it would have occurred to the daft old idiot something that would have occurred to a first-grader in about ten seconds:

It is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE that the reflected light of the moon be seen instantaneously, along with the sun, when the sun is turned on, but that the reflected light of your neighbor not be seen for eight and a half minutes.

YOU ARE CONSTIPATED DAVID, AND I CANNOT DO ANYTHING TO GET YOU TO MOVE YOUR ______. THEREFORE, ANYTHING I SAY WILL BE STUCK IN YOUR COLON. I'M SORRY FOR BEING SO EXPLICIT BUT THAT IS A PERFECT ANALOGY.

[peacegirl]

I am having a hard time leaving this thread unfinished, but it's only going to be more of the same. I'm not really sure why people are hanging around because there hasn't been any progress for 100 pages.

[thedoc]

I for one am So Sorry that you have disrupted your life for our sake. Perhaps if you had spent more time in the real world you wouldn't be having these difficulties because you would have seen that your father had lost it and like you didn't have a clue of what was real and what is fiction, no matter how nice it sounds on the surface.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

YOU ARE CONSTIPATED DAVID, AND I CANNOT DO ANYTHING TO GET YOU TO MOVE YOUR ______. THEREFORE, ANYTHING I SAY WILL BE STUCK IN YOUR COLON. I'M SORRY FOR BEING SO EXPLICIT BUT THAT IS A PERFECT ANALOGY.

Well I'm not sure I agree with this, but I can see how, for anyone with a brain that is in good working order, reading this book would have an advers effect on the blood presure. On the other hand if you have a good sense of humor this book could be a real hoot.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this has nothing to do with efferent vision, and you won't be able to see this until you recognize that efferent vision is a valid [theory].

This is the key to your problem here. There is no idea in the world that must be accepted as valid before it can be understood as valid. It happens the other way around. It has to happen the other way around.

This sort of backward, overly-simplistic approach is also the core of the problem with the efferent vision ideas. He tells us (and you parrot) that we can see objects when we can see them, and we can't see them when we can't see them. No actual mechanism of sight is proposed, he simply assumes that the current mechanism is wrong, and hence there is no delay between an event and our seeing it. Unfortunately for him, this sort of claim can be debunked, as in actually proven false, by an elementary school student. Since we know he made it at least that far in his education, he has little excuse for getting it so completely wrong.

As has been pointed out, he's not even bringing anything new or revolutionary to the table here. Efferent vision theories are centuries, perhaps even millennia old, and persisted until very recently in our history, until so much evidence piled up against such ideas that they simply cannot be taken seriously. That is evidently NOT the way we see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Read this post, at least twice to ensure you understand Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

And I have said that this kind of communication is not what Lessans is talking about. Nothing he has claimed defies the laws of physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

This is the key to your problem here. There is no idea in the world that must be accepted as valid before it can be understood as valid. It happens the other way around. It has to happen the other way around.

This sort of backward, overly-simplistic approach is also the core of the problem with the efferent vision ideas. He tells us (and you parrot) that we can see objects when we can see them, and we can't see them when we can't see them. No actual mechanism of sight is proposed, he simply assumes that the current mechanism is wrong, and hence there is no delay between an event and our seeing it. Unfortunately for him, this sort of claim can be debunked, as in actually proven false, by an elementary school student. Since we know he made it at least that far in his education, he has little excuse for getting it so completely wrong.

As has been pointed out, he's not even bringing anything new or revolutionary to the table here. Efferent vision theories are centuries, perhaps even millennia old, and persisted until very recently in our history, until so much evidence piled up against such ideas that they simply cannot be taken seriously. That is evidently NOT the way we see.

Kael, what can I say? For you to say that he can be debunked because of a theory that has an apparent mechanism, albeit false, means absolutely nothing. And for you to use the fact that "an elementary school student" could debunk this knowledge, makes me know that you are determined, no matter how high the price, to find something to make him wrong. This is not about his observations at all; it's about your refusal to take his observations seriously.