A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Keep going peacegirl, the more you talk the more you discredit yourself. You have put yourself in the category of the flat Earthers, 9/11 Truthers, Creationsists, Scientologists, and Birthers, because your behavior is indistinguishable from the assorted nuts.

I'm not continuing in here LadyShea; what has already been recorded will show how impossible it was for me to be heard, let alone understood. Future generations will make the decision as to who was right and who was wrong.

[Vivisectus]

In future generations, will I be played by an evil Jeremy Irons?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

will show how impossible it was for me to be heard

You have been heard, 1759 posts just by you.

Your words have not been edited, your words have not been deleted, you have not been banned, sanctioned, or officially warned away from saying your piece in any way. Because your words are typed, rather than spoken, they are on record for any and all to read, as you noted.

You exercised free speech and you received free speech in return.

This was the most free exchange of ideas you are likely to encounter anywhere.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

You do realize that Angakuk isn't actually trying to help you here, ja?

Also, why does the reflected light of the moon appear instantly, even though it, like your neighbor, is 8.5 light minutes distant from the source light of the sun?

Originally Posted by davidm

Moreover, as has been demonstrated to peacegirl, seeing the sun instantaneously because it is big enough and bright enough (illuminated by its own light) is impossible because the physical world bars instantaneous information transfer regardless of how we see. The state change from sun off to sun on is information by definition.

Now, peacegirl, lets deconstruct the logic of the situation that Angakuk has laid out, and ensnared you into agreeing with in the brilliant trap that he set for you. Are there two kinds of light? Actually, there must be THREE kinds of light: The source light of the sun that is seen instantaneously (even though that is impossible); the reflected light off the moon that is also seen instaneously, and the reflected light off one's neighbor that is seen 8.5 minutes later. So we have 1. instantaneous source light; 2. instantaneous reflected light; and 3. delayed reflected light.

Do you seriously wish to maintain such fuckwittery? I know you won't attempt to defend or explain it, even if you maintain it; it's IMPOSSIBLE to defend such arrant nonsense!

Originally Posted by davidm

And? Why does it, twit?

Even a kindergarten student could spot the logical flaw here, but not you and your dumbass dingbat Dad.



Oh, and Angakuk WAS lampooning your position. His is a pastor, but a very EVIL pastor.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

LOLS he didn't cover the moon. Do you even read?

First, let's settle the moon question. Efferent vision requires that all sight be instantaneous sight. That is, the very moment that some object is illuminated it becomes visible. The sun, the moment it is turned on, instantly becomes visible. The moon, the moment it is struck by light from the sun, instantly becomes visible. Nearby objects, the moment they are struck by light from the sun, instantly become visible. Each of these classes of objects is seen instantaneously, but none of them are seen at the same instant. The logic of this argument is irrefutable, never mind that the initial premise (that sight is efferent) is false. The sweet irony here is that Lessans criticizes the afferent theory of sight on the grounds that it is a predominantly logical argument while his own "theory" relies on an argument that is exclusively logical. The principle difference between the two theories being that the prevailing theory of afferent sight is based on solid empirical evidence and Lessans' "theory" of efferent sight is based on nothing more than his own unsubstantiated "astute observation".

Second, I strenuously object to the characterization of my previous post as a "lampoon". I am deeply insulted at the very suggestion that I would stoop to the use of sarcasm or satire merely to score points in a debate. I believe that I am owed an apology.

[peacegirl]

How very shallow you are Vivisectus. This mirrors who you are in your self-importance, not Lessans. It makes me sad. I'm sure you will all say, "Then be sad, you idiot." The phrase, "You idiot," is your proof that he has nothing, but it fails over and over again. Answer me sincerely, is this the kind of response that comes from someone who is truly unbiased, or more importantly, professional? No, it isn't, and it allows me to see (with a bright light shown on it), that this is nothing more than people who don't want to be wrong, no matter what it takes. They will keep anybody who threatens them under wraps, no matter how they do it; even if the means they attack with full force like Stephen Marturin (the worst of them all), Davidm, The Editor, Doctor X, thedoc, and others, what they cannot understand because they did not read the book. Does that seem a little bit nuts to anyone in here?

I have come to realize why people are scared straight from sharing their truth. They don't want to be condemned for their thoughts like I have been condemned. And I don't blame them one bit. This is the third Reich. You better agree, or you will be eaten up alive. Does anyone with any brain left recogize the dynamic going on in here? This thread is nothing more than a big lie (I feel sorry for you people who think you are god's gift to humanity), and will ruin it for others if they are depending on these people to determine what is true.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Barely coherent, with a VERY idiosyncratic idea of "proof", and always claiming persecution - you rant just like your father writes, did you know that?

It's the dynamic that's played out in here that doesn't add up. I'm not going to get sucked back into this thread. It's full of name calling, with very little substance.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I am of course utterly baffled by your invoking of the nazis - everyone knows that when you call your opponent a nazi, that makes you about 7 more right. You have beaten the thought-police with this cunning and novel strategy. Bravo!

And you can't see how the responses in here were a cunning strategy to make Lessans look foolish? How could they have been objective when no one read the book? If I go down, you're coming with me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thank goodness that we have you, the only person in his entire board who can think for herself and does not mindlessly parrot authority! A plucky little fighter who doggedly pursues the truth, even if the evidence that surfaces goes right against everything she was raised to believe.

Coming from someone who can't even explain the two-sided equation in his own words, yet tells me that the premises are wrong. All you keep repeating is that firemen are not a condition of fires, therefore blame is not a condition for justification. Bad analogy!!!! I cannot believe, in all honesty, that out of 200 pages, this was the only refutation other than davidm saying that Lessans' definition of determinism was a modal fallacy. And this group is supposed to be the cream of the crop???

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Someone who is willing to look the truth in the face and stand up to the hypocrites who claim that their "rational thinking" and "scientific method" gives them a better standard of truth than those who simply say "My daddy said so, and he was a very clever fellow who spent a lot of time thinking about stuff, so if he thought stuff that was wrong, he would notice and think something else in stead!".

That's a red herring if I ever saw one. It's another distraction so you can be right. You're not interested in anything that could lead to the truth; you're only interested in the sound of your own voice.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How dare we all criticize this epic work that you so graciously allowed us to celebrate! Why, we don't even know what is written in it, because none of us have read a page. We are just incredibly lucky to guess that it features such gems of wisdom as love of a persons genitals, the sexy jacket and the translucent robe! How we ever divined that there was a man on Rigel who can send messages back in time is beyond me.

That is why I can't continue. For you to twist this man's words and turn them into something I couldn't have made up if I tried, makes this thread a mockery at Lessans' expense. But the joke will be on you, when you look back and see how unfair you all were. This is not about persecution; it's about fair treatment.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And the mocking! Just because it features the marvel of efferent, instant sight we quibble about such minor problems as physics, causality and the inevitable paradox of time-travel. We mope and whine about a complete lack of mechanism by which sight is supposed to work. Who the hell was Einstein anyway? Did he ever devise a system to save the world? No Ma'am!

Funny you talk about time travel when efferent vision has nothing to do with time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It must be because this awesome epic of epic epicness so threatens us, somewhere deep inside, that we must suppress it. We just cannot bear the idea of our treasured preconceptions being taken away from us, as we are all deeply and emotionally invested in it. I myself have cried myself to sleep many a night, rocking back and forth, murmuring "No! It cannot be true that the optic nerve is not afferent! I must think something up, find some way to shut her up!"

Maybe you aren't threatened by afferent vision, but others are. It's very difficult to be in the hot seat for a change, and get a taste of your own medicine.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why, I would not be a bit surprised of government agents in black suits are on their way to your house as we speak, to silence the awesome wisdom of your father before it takes root and begins to threaten the power of the political establishment. No wonder those presidents never wrote your father back!

There you go again coming up with all kinds of false conclusions. The president probably never received the letter to begin with. These letters were only meant to show the reader what lengths he went to, to be heard.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Keep up the good fight, peacegirl! Surely, your day will come. Oh wait - you have already conveniently moved the revolution to a time after we are all dead, even though the book says otherwise. So your day will come, but none of us will notice, and for all intents and purposes the world will go on exactly as if your time will in fact not come. Hey if it works for religions, why not for you?

Wrong again. He said 25 years from the time this discovery was confirmed valid, which has not happened, so you can't go by that number.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Funny you talk about time travel when efferent vision has nothing to do with time.

Actually, it has quite a lot to do with time. As you'd know if you'd bothered to read some of the explanations and links that have been given to you.

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to get sucked back into this thread.

Liar.

That is why I can't continue.

And yet you do.

[thedoc]

Angakuk, Then let me offer here a most sincere and heart felt apology.

Of course I can only speak for myself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

First, let's settle the moon question. Efferent vision requires that all sight be instantaneous sight. That is, the very moment that some object is illuminated it becomes visible. The sun, the moment it is turned on, instantly becomes visible. The moon, the moment it is struck by light from the sun, instantly becomes visible. Nearby objects, the moment they are struck by light from the sun, instantly become visible. Each of these classes of objects is seen instantaneously, but none of them are seen at the same instant. The logic of this argument is irrefutable, never mind that the initial premise (that sight is efferent) is false. The sweet irony here is that Lessans criticizes the afferent theory of sight on the grounds that it is a predominantly logical argument while his own "theory" relies on an argument that is exclusively logical. The principle difference between the two theories being that the prevailing theory of afferent sight is based on solid empirical evidence and Lessans' "theory" of efferent sight is based on nothing more than his own unsubstantiated "astute observation".

Empirical evidence can be misleading, while an astute observation can be correct.

[Kael]

Yeah, Ang, you big jerk!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, it has quite a lot to do with time. As you'd know if you'd bothered to read some of the explanations and links that have been given to you.

We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon,
the sun, and the distant stars.

[The Lone Ranger]

Again, your "response" boils down to "Lessans said it, and that settles it as far as I'm concerned."

Go read "Relativity for Dummies," or any astronomy textbook, or some such thing. If we could see in "real time" (we can't; that has been thoroughly proved), it would necessarily cause all sorts of problems with how we experience time.

[Kael]

I really enjoyed that one bit in Sagan's Cosmos where he sets up what things would be like if the speed of light were much, much slower, like less than 60 mph, and then goes through what we might experience at a typical intersection were that the case.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon,
the sun, and the distant stars.

If the images aren't seen because they are carried to us via light, then how are they seen? What the fuck is the mechanism?

Oh, and you've already answered at least four times:


"I DON'T KNOW."




The fact is, however, that regardless of how we see, real-time information acquistion, which is what your Royal Stupidness is describing here, is IMPOSSIBLE, for reasons that have repeatedly been explained to you. Too bad, so sad! Your father was nuts, and so are you.

[The Lone Ranger]

I should also point out, by the way, that Lessan's quoted "proof" that there's no relationship between time* and distance is a textbook example of a non sequitur. And even more to the point, it's a perfect example of circular reasoning, since he assumes what he's trying to prove.


*Presumably, he meant that there is no delay imposed by the finite speed of light between when a distant event happens and when we see it happening. As is typical, however, Lessans is unable to convey the idea clearly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have been heard, 1759 posts just by you.

No LadyShea. This thread is a joke.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your words have not been edited, your words have not been deleted, you have not been banned, sanctioned, or officially warned away from saying your piece in any way. Because your words are typed, rather than spoken, they are on record for any and all to read, as you noted.

I really tried to analyze how people could have gotten this book so wrong. It's all because you took this book as a joke from the very beginning. Every single one of you. This book was not read from cover to cover. Everyone says they read the book, but didn't even know that there would be no authority or control of any kind in the new world. That's a dead give-a-way, if there ever was one.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You exercised free speech and you received free speech in return.

This was the most free exchange of ideas you are likely to encounter anywhere.

Maybe it was a free exchange of ideas; but it wasn't based on mutual understanding or respect.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I should also point out, by the way, that Lessan's quoted "proof" that there's no relationship between time* and distance is a textbook example of a non sequitur. And even more to the point, it's a perfect example of circular reasoning, since he assumes what he's trying to prove.

That wasn't meant to be his proof. He was just extending his observation that if there is nothing coming from the light that is converted into an image; then sight has nothing to do with time.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

*Presumably, he meant that there is no delay imposed by the finite speed of light between when a distant event happens and when we see it happening. As is typical, however, Lessans is unable to convey the idea clearly.

There is no delay because there is no image coming from the light. I thought he was very clear.

[LadyShea]

You are not entitled to understanding or being taken seriously or to be respected. The allows most everyone to say what they want to say, and you got to take advantage of that.

That you don't like what others had to say, oh well

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Again, your "response" boils down to "Lessans said it, and that settles it as far as I'm concerned."

Go read "Relativity for Dummies," or any astronomy textbook, or some such thing. If we could see in "real time" (we can't; that has been thoroughly proved), it would necessarily cause all sorts of problems with how we experience time.

I do not understand why seeing in real time would cause a problem at all. It doesn't change anything except for the belief that we would be seeing an image from the past. It doesn't contradict any proven technology.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That wasn't meant to be his proof.

Oh? Then why did he say "This proves conclusively..."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are not entitled to understanding or being taken seriously or to be respected. The allows most everyone to say what they want to say, and you got to take advantage of that.

That you don't like what others had to say, oh well

It's not anyone's fault; it's just that the format doesn't lend itself to introducing an unknown work of this type. It was my error to ever think that people would take Lesans seriously. After all, who am I to come on a forum and announce that I have a discovery that will change the world? It really does sound crazy, but if you understood my background and why it has been so difficult getting this knowledge investigated, it wouldn't seem so strange after all. Being here (and on the other forums) has taught me a lot though; especially what not to repeat again.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not understand why seeing in real time would cause a problem at all. It doesn't change anything except for the belief that we would be seeing an image from the past. It doesn't contradict any proven technology.

That's the point! It does contradict proven technology. And more to the point, you would understand why it contradicts quite a lot of very well-established theory -- and proven technology -- if you would bother to read up on the subject matter. But you won't.


That's practically your entire MO:

Step 1.) You make an unsupported claim
Step 2.) Various people point out that the claim is both unsupported and contradicted by well-established facts and theories
Step 3.) You claim that you don't understand how this is the case
Step 4.) People give you explanations and specific examples of facts that contradict you claim, with information on how you can learn more about this for yourself
Step 5.) You declare that you have no desire to/intention of educating yourself on the matter
Step 6.) Go to Step 1

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? Then why did he say "This proves conclusively..."

He was describing how the eyes work based on his observations regarding our relationship with the external world. He was assuming you were following his reasoning, and therefore would see the veracity of his conclusions.

[Vivisectus]

If I go down, you're coming with me.

a

I see that an exaggerated sense of self-importance runs in the family!

I cannot believe, in all honesty, that out of 200 pages, this was the only refutation other than davidm saying that Lessans' definition of determinism was a modal fallacy.

There were lots of others - you just ignored them as usual. Remember the unsupported assertion and the way human conscience "just works that way" which Lessans just knew because of his "astute observations?"

Besides - as you correctly say - they are refutations. They refute your fathers theories.

That's a red herring if I ever saw one. It's another distraction so you can be right. You're not interested in anything that could lead to the truth; you're only interested in the sound of your own voice.

You really are totally immune to farce and sarcasm aren't you? Just like you are immune to any part of reality that shows how wrong your father was.

That is why I can't continue. For you to twist this man's words and turn them into something I couldn't have made up if I tried, makes this thread a mockery at Lessans' expense. But the joke will be on you, when you look back and see how unfair you all were. This is not about persecution; it's about fair treatment.

They called me mad! Maaaaad I tell you! haha! Aahaha!! AHAHAHA!!!!

Funny you talk about time travel when efferent vision has nothing to do with time.

It is funny - and foolish! Because you hide behind willful ignorance so you don't have to realize that actually, yeah it does. So I am a fool for pointing it out once more - you do not understand it, and you will not do a thing about it. You simply make idiot statements like "I don't believe that it contradicts relativity" and leave it at that. As if it makes the slightest jot of difference what you believe.

Maybe you aren't threatened by afferent vision, but others are. It's very difficult to be in the hot seat for a change, and get a taste of your own medicine.

I have no idea what you are on about here. You seem to be having a sort of random hissy fit at this stage. Awesome, but unintelligible.

There you go again coming up with all kinds of false conclusions. The president probably never received the letter to begin with. These letters were only meant to show the reader what lengths he went to, to be heard.

Maybe, juuuuust maybe someone at this stage should have wondered if maybe it was being ignored because they are the ramblings of a autodidact who badly botched the job, was not too bright and had a messiah complex?

Seriously, this man called Durant a great philosopher.

Wrong again. He said 25 years from the time this discovery was confirmed valid, which has not happened, so you can't go by that number.

Actually I don't think that was what he actually said. I do appreciate that it is what you keep telling yourself so you can continue to believe in this drivel. Meanie scientists it is then, stubbornly resisting getting themselves Nobel prizes for creating the first time-machine, and not realizing how far superior your fathers education was.

But hey - it is all mathematical and undeniable. Any moment now everyone will realize that it is brilliant, really. Any moment now.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not understand why seeing in real time would cause a problem at all. It doesn't change anything except for the belief that we would be seeing an image from the past. It doesn't contradict any proven technology.

It is one of many things that you do not understand. This one you refuse to learn about even if it is presented in simple terms.