A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 230

peacegirl · #**5726** 01-21-2012, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl This link talks about the laws of geometric optics. If you believe optics to be a better model of efferent vision than it is for afferent vision, you need to explain how these support efferent vision

Phy 254 Laws of Geometrical Optics

These pages talk about the Beer-Lambert law regarding light absorption and atmospheric absorption as well (The full specrum from the sun does not reach Earth). Once again, (P) absorption MUST be compatible with these known laws of physics and empirically measurable observations

CHP - Beer-Lambert Law
Photon Absorption

This NASA publication (.pdf) discusses the problem with studying the "full spectrum" from Earth, because the full spectrum does not reach Earth. So, you need to explain precisely what you mean by full spectrum in the way you are using it, because it is not the entire spectrum

Quote:

Only visible light, some radio waves, and limited amounts of infrared and ultraviolet light survive the passage from space to the ground. That limited amount of radiation has given astronomers enough information to estimate the general shape and size of the universe and categorize its basic components, but there is much left to learn. It is essential to study the entire spectrum rather than just limited regions of it.

Relying on the radiation that reaches Earth's surface is like listening to a piano recital with only a few of the piano's keys working.

Now, I am pretty sure you have not studied enough optics for your claim that "optics supports efferent vision" to be remotely credible. Here's your chance to show that you have an even possible, let alone plausible model.

You wrote: "Only visible light, some radio waves, and limited amounts of infrared and ultraviolet light survive the passage from space to ground. So isn't that which we see part of visible light? And beyond that, I already told you that, according to EFFERENT vision, light does not have to reach Earth for us to see the Sun and moon in real time.

Really? That's your whole response to this post?

I specifically said "So, you need to explain precisely what you mean by full spectrum in the way you are using it, because it is not the entire spectrum". You've been talking about the full spectrum for a week or so now.

If you only mean the visible spectrum, then start using "visible spectrum"

ANd no, I didn't write that, NASA did

I don't care what words are used LadyShea, when we look out at our environment, we see colors and we see white light. What do you think white light is made up of? This whole discussion has gotten way off track into theoretical nonsense for the sole purpose of throwing me off balance when it doesn't even relate. How can you explain anything from this perspective, even what science calls fact?

Imprecise words indicate sloppy thinking and a sloppy model.

You want to be taken seriously, act like a serious person discussing scientifically valid ideas rather than a crackpot blathering meaningless gibberish

The links I gave you are precise, they describe laws and show the mathematics of optics...which is the model for standard vision

So follow your own advice, and instead of searching for definitions you think negates efferent vision, explain the concept in your own words so I can address it point by point. If you can't do that, then how does that make you look? :eek:

LadyShea · #**5727** 01-21-2012, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounded in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for you to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

No, that was not any kind of "grounding", just showing that I don't believe he has anything to hide from me, nor do I think he has been fooling me or lying to me, nor do I feel he would be reluctant to shake my hand. We've never met face to face or even emailed or spoken on the phone. My only knowledge of him is from forum interactions like this.

I consider livius drusus a true friend, but have never met her and will never meet her, because she chooses not to meet face to face.

ThreeLawsSafe · #**5728** 01-21-2012, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounded in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for Uyou to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

You misread. We have NOT met in real life. She said "if" we did, a conditional.

Oh, I stand corrected. I'm glad you're friends, still, even if I question how often that truly happens in venues such as this.

peacegirl · #**5729** 01-21-2012, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounded in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for you to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

You misread. We have NOT met in real life. She said "if" we did, a conditional.

Oh my god, I'm scared to imagine what Davidm would do if he met me in person. He would probably shoot me.

ThreeLawsSafe · #**5730** 01-21-2012, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounded in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for you to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

No, that was not any kind of "grounding", just showing that I don't believe he has anything to hide from me, nor do I think he has been fooling me or lying to me, nor do I feel he would be reluctant to shake my hand.

I consider livius drusus a true friend, but have never met her and will never meet her, because she chooses not to meet face to face.

Good for you. I think it's important to distinguish reality from fiction. Online friends are fine. But when we start attributing psychological attributes to others based on posts, we're in danger of confusing our very uniformed impressions with real human insight.

LadyShea · #**5731** 01-21-2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl This link talks about the laws of geometric optics. If you believe optics to be a better model of efferent vision than it is for afferent vision, you need to explain how these support efferent vision

Phy 254 Laws of Geometrical Optics

These pages talk about the Beer-Lambert law regarding light absorption and atmospheric absorption as well (The full specrum from the sun does not reach Earth). Once again, (P) absorption MUST be compatible with these known laws of physics and empirically measurable observations

CHP - Beer-Lambert Law
Photon Absorption

This NASA publication (.pdf) discusses the problem with studying the "full spectrum" from Earth, because the full spectrum does not reach Earth. So, you need to explain precisely what you mean by full spectrum in the way you are using it, because it is not the entire spectrum

Quote:

Only visible light, some radio waves, and limited amounts of infrared and ultraviolet light survive the passage from space to the ground. That limited amount of radiation has given astronomers enough information to estimate the general shape and size of the universe and categorize its basic components, but there is much left to learn. It is essential to study the entire spectrum rather than just limited regions of it.

Relying on the radiation that reaches Earth's surface is like listening to a piano recital with only a few of the piano's keys working.

Now, I am pretty sure you have not studied enough optics for your claim that "optics supports efferent vision" to be remotely credible. Here's your chance to show that you have an even possible, let alone plausible model.

You wrote: "Only visible light, some radio waves, and limited amounts of infrared and ultraviolet light survive the passage from space to ground. So isn't that which we see part of visible light? And beyond that, I already told you that, according to EFFERENT vision, light does not have to reach Earth for us to see the Sun and moon in real time.

Really? That's your whole response to this post?

I specifically said "So, you need to explain precisely what you mean by full spectrum in the way you are using it, because it is not the entire spectrum". You've been talking about the full spectrum for a week or so now.

If you only mean the visible spectrum, then start using "visible spectrum"

ANd no, I didn't write that, NASA did

I don't care what words are used LadyShea, when we look out at our environment, we see colors and we see white light. What do you think white light is made up of? This whole discussion has gotten way off track into theoretical nonsense for the sole purpose of throwing me off balance when it doesn't even relate. How can you explain anything from this perspective, even what science calls fact?

Imprecise words indicate sloppy thinking and a sloppy model.

You want to be taken seriously, act like a serious person discussing scientifically valid ideas rather than a crackpot blathering meaningless gibberish

The links I gave you are precise, they describe laws and show the mathematics of optics...which is the model for standard vision

So follow your own advice, and instead of searching for definitions you think negates efferent vision, explain the concept in your own words so I can address it point by point. If you can't do that, then how does that make you look? :eek:

I wasn't searching for definitions, I was searching for the laws found within optics, you are the one that claims optics supports efferent vision better than the standard understanding of vision, so show me how.

You're the one making the claim, you need to support it if you want people to think you have anything plausible here. Otherwise, why shouldn't we dismiss Lessans as a crackpot woomeister?

thedoc · #**5732** 01-21-2012, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I think you should start a thread, then. Of course I'll define terms closely. By Evolutionary Psychology, I mean the body of work produced in academic journals and related books, begun by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby at UC Santa Barbara, which envisions the mind as a set of information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

I think the notion that everything is capable of changing within the human mind is an untenable claim, and the evidence in psychology shows that fairly definitively.

When I said it would be an interesting thread to follow, I ment as a spectator. My formal, and limited, exposure to psychology was 40+ years ago, I will aslo need to access the publications you refered to. But I think the recient findings in medicine that indicate that the brain can heal and recover from injury by re-training areas of the brain to preform functions that were done by injured sections, would indicate that the brain/mind can change. Can you provide a link to evidence to the contrary?

LadyShea · #**5733** 01-21-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounded in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for Uyou to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

You misread. We have NOT met in real life. She said "if" we did, a conditional.

Oh, I stand corrected. I'm glad you're friends, still, even if I question how often that truly happens in venues such as this.

I have met many people that post here at :ff:

and other online venues in real life, and have had them to my home, been in their homes, etc. Off the top of my head from here I've met at least 5 people IRL...and probably 50 or so in the 15 years I've been communicating online in forums or chat. One group of us adoptive moms who met online had a beach weekend with our kids. I've been to (and spoken at) conventions where I met people I had interacted with online. My husband and I hosted a party for New Age types back in our using AOL to search for truth days

There are at least two committed couples (one married) here at :ff:

that met here or another discussion forum.

Hell, online is turning out to be the way thousands of couples meet
Internet Dating Much More Successful Than Thought
Ph.D. candidates study success of online dating sites | The Triangle

I think it seems odd or unusual to those who choose to separate online from IRL.

thedoc · #**5734** 01-21-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounded in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for you to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

Did you read the post? She stated that she has never met him 'Face to Face' that would preclude a 'real-life meeting'? Your point has not been made.

davidm · #**5735** 01-21-2012, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, I'm scared to imagine what Davidm would do if he met me in person. He would probably shoot me.

Like Lessans, you certainly have delusions of grandeur and a boundlessly inflated estimation of your own importance. But, as I always say: you're a chip off the old blockhead.

ThreeLawsSafe · #**5736** 01-21-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounde
d in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for Uyou to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

You misread. We have NOT met in real life. She said "if" we did, a conditional.

Oh, I stand corrected. I'm glad you're friends, still, even if I question how often that truly happens in venues such as this.

I have met many people that post here at :ff:

and other online venues in real life, and have had them to my home, been in their homes, etc. Off the top of my head from here I've met at least 5 people IRL...and probably 50 or so in the 15 years I've been communicating online in forums or chat. One group of us adoptive moms who met online had a beach weekend with our kids. I've been to (and spoken at) conventions where I met people I had interacted with online. My husband and I hosted a party for New Age types back in our using AOL to search for truth days

There are at least two committed couples (one married) here at :ff:

that met here or another discussion forum.

Hell, online is turning out to be the way thousands of couples meet
Internet Dating Much More Successful Than Thought
Ph.D. candidates study success of online dating sites | The Triangle

You're arguing against a straw man. Go back and look at what I'm maintaining about being cautious in psychologizing on an Internet forum, please.

ThreeLawsSafe · #**5737** 01-21-2012, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounded in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for you to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

Did you read the post? She stated that she has never met him 'Face to Face' that would preclude a 'real-life meeting'? Your point has not been made.

Did you read my apology post? My point is that psychologizing based upon posts in a forum thread is confused business. I'm not maintaining that people can't form friendships online.

LadyShea · #**5738** 01-21-2012, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And beyond that, I already told you that, according to EFFERENT vision, light does not have to reach Earth for us to see the Sun and moon in real time.

Even if we don't need light to reach Earth to see it, we must have photons touch camera film to be absorbed and create a photographic image.
So, if the Sun was turned on at noon, how could we photograph the Sun at noon when the photons from the Sun are not on Earth to be absorbed by camera film?

This goes back to the way the brain works and the requirement that the object must be in view (optics). When those two phenomenon come together, we get a mirror image. Mirror images do not require travel from point to point. They are an exact replica but on the other side of the imaginary coin, which I've stated more than once. :sadcheer:

What does the brain have to do with camera film absorbing photons? How can a photon be absorbed by camera film if the photon is only a "mirror image" and not physically present at the same location of the film?

If it is physically present at the same location as the film, how does it get there without traveling, materializing as a duplicate, or teleporting?

thedoc · #**5739** 01-21-2012, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So tell me what are we seeing when we look out on a clear day? What is the color of the space between objects if not the full spectrum of light?

In the summer when I look out there is a lot of green things, some grey things, bright colored things (flowers?), blue sky. Right now it's winter, there are a lot of dark grey things, some brown things, white snow, a few odd colored objects, and the grey cloudy sky. I don't see any blank whiteness anywhere. Tell me Peacegirl when you look out do you see a few objects and a lot of blank whiteness between them, if so you need to see an optometrist, right before you see the psychiatrist.

thedoc · #**5740** 01-21-2012, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And beyond that, I already told you that, according to EFFERENT vision, light does not have to reach Earth for us to see the Sun and moon in real time.

Even if we don't need light to reach Earth to see it, we must have photons touch camera film to be absorbed and create a photographic image.
So, if the Sun was turned on at noon, how could we photograph the Sun at noon when the photons from the Sun are not on Earth to be absorbed by camera film?

This goes back to the way the brain works and the requirement that the object must be in view (optics). When those two phenomenon come together, we get a mirror image. Mirror images do not require travel from point to point. They are an exact replica but on the other side of the imaginary coin, which I've stated more than once. :sadcheer:

Yes you have stated that more than once but that doesn't make it right, in fact what you have stated is utterly and completely WRONG, and without any semblance of support. Optics DO NOT support efferent vision, optics supports afferent vision, it is only your complete lack of understanding of optics that allows you to say otherwise.

LadyShea · #**5741** 01-21-2012, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

You're arguing against a straw man. Go back and look at what I'm maintaining about being cautious in psychologizing on an Internet forum, please.

I wasn't arguing, I just think my experience isn't all that uncommon and that online is just another type of social interaction.

People are still people even if you can't see them. We psychologize people all the time, in simply trying to figure out who they are and what makes them tick in the course of getting to know them, or in the course of coming to like them, even love them. We make all manner of judgements about the people we meet, necessarily, it is part of being a social species. Hell I gave a kidney to someone I knew only from phone calls, a coworker from an office in another state .

Yes, laypeople making diagnoses should be discouraged. People being people and calling it as they see it...that's just humans

thedoc · #**5742** 01-21-2012, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

No I don't think i'm confusing it, I also don't seperate it, they are both part of our life experience. I also believe I have made friends on these forums even though I have never met them face to face. You can learn a lot, the only problem is that it is more difficult to determine if what you read is real or just made up fantasy. I could claim to have a Doctorate in any number of subjects and could maintain the fiction if not challenged and pressed too hard. However I admit that 'thedoc' is a nick-name given to me many years ago by some of my friends and it's self-inflicted in Microferroequineology.

I think you have to ask yourself whether the two claims you make in this post are consistent or contradictory. On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People are often self-contradictory because they are so complex, simple answers are rarely sufficient, and I have been the victim of others who feel the need to pidgon-hole everyone with a simple description, and then not expand on that at all. On the internet you take what you get and work within it, if it proves to be false, you move on having learned something, but I refuse to judge the next person by past experience with others. So you are what you say you are till proven otherwise, if that makes me vulnerable to deceit, what have I lost?

I don't think it's a question of what have you lost. I think it's a question of what have you gained? Dialogue, insight, some sense of community? Sure. Real friendship? I think in most cases that's highly arguable. Again, don't confuse the projected affectations of Internet personalities with true-to-life people and behaviors. That's my only point.

Then it appears that we have different attitudes toward these exchanges, and that is good to know, it helps me to know what to expect. Perhaps it is 'trust' that colors our preception of these dialogues.

Do you 'Trust first, and doubt later'?
Or do you 'Doubt first, and trust later, if at all?

thedoc · #**5743** 01-21-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounded in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for you to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

Did you read the post? She stated that she has never met him 'Face to Face' that would preclude a 'real-life meeting'? Your point has not been made.

Did you read my apology post? My point is that psychologizing based upon posts in a forum thread is confused business. I'm not maintaining that people can't form friendships online.

Yes I did see it after the fact, I tend to go back and look at the posts in order and respond at the time. My timing was off, Are we OK?

davidm · #**5744** 01-21-2012, 08:11 PM

at the BAUT forum when I informed them that peacegirl thinks if God turned on the sun at noon people on earth would see it instantly, but not their neighbors for eight and a half minutes, a response of spluttering disbelief:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baut

No ... But ... That's ...

Followed by, when I explained that we were trying to educate peacegirl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baut

I think you need a miracle, mate!

ThreeLawsSafe · #**5745** 01-21-2012, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

No I don't think i'm confusing it, I also don't seperate it, they are both part of our life experience. I also believe I have made friends on these forums even though I have never met them face to face. You can learn a lot, the only problem is that it is more difficult to determine if what you read is real or just made up fantasy. I could claim to have a Doctorate in any number of subjects and could maintain the fiction if not challenged and pressed too hard. However I admit that 'thedoc' is a nick-name given to me many years ago by some of my friends and it's self-inflicted in Microferroequineology.

I think you have to ask yourself whether the two claims you make in this post are consistent or contradictory. On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People are often self-contradictory because they are so complex, simple answers are rarely sufficient, and I have been the victim of others who feel the need to pidgon-hole everyone with a simple description, and then not expand on that at all. On the internet you take what you get and work within it, if it proves to be false, you move on having learned something, but I refuse to judge the next person by past experience with others. So you are what you say you are till proven otherwise, if that makes me vulnerable to deceit, what have I lost?

I don't think it's a question of what have you lost. I think it's a question of what have you gained? Dialogue, insight, some sense of community? Sure. Real friendship? I think in most cases that's highly arguable. Again, don't confuse the projected affectations of Internet personalities with true-to-life people and behaviors. That's my only point.

Then it appears that we have different attitudes toward these exchanges, and that is good to know, it helps me to know what to expect. Perhaps it is 'trust' that colors our preception of these dialogues.

Do you 'Trust first, and doubt later'?
Or do you 'Doubt first, and trust later, if at all?

I don't regard Internet posts as any kind of definitive means by which to trust or distrust the individual who posts. I'll always try to take what is written at face value, and I appreciate learning new things. I've learned even from naturalist.atheist, whose posts are generally directed toward demeaning or insulting others, as he knows his stuff in programming and basic AI. I generally think that diagnosing others based on Internet behavior is ill-advised, and even potentially damaging and cruel.

ThreeLawsSafe · #**5746** 01-21-2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounded in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for you to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

Did you read the post? She stated that she has never met him 'Face to Face' that would preclude a 'real-life meeting'? Your point has not been made.

Did you read my apology post? My point is that psychologizing based upon posts in a forum thread is confused business. I'm not maintaining that people can't form friendships online.

Yes I did see it after the fact, I tend to go back and look at the posts in order and respond at the time. My timing was off, Are we OK?

No problem! You were right to point out my error.

LadyShea · #**5747** 01-21-2012, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So tell me what are we seeing when we look out on a clear day? What is the color of the space between objects if not the full spectrum of light?

Um, I don't know what you see, but I see some sort of "object" (as in light reflecting source) everywhere I look; the world exists in the background, foreground, and peripheries- the wall, the ground, the furniture, plants, trees, structures. Looking straight up I see blue sky, BLUE, not the full spectrum.

Spacemonkey · #**5748** 01-21-2012, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dam it Spacemonkey, there are no made up facts. What are you talking about? I'm describing reality; what about you?

You asked me to explain why optics cannot resolve a picture from an object due to light alone. We do not agree that this is a fact. Asking me to explain it is like me asking you to explain why we don't see things in real-time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered your questions.

You've answered them previously by positing stationary light and teleporting photons. You've then immediately denied that light is every stationary or ever teleports. You then ignore the posts where I explain the problems with your answers, and refuse to revise those answers by re-answering the original questions. So the only answers you've actually provided remain contradictory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have failed to explain how it is possible for light to bring the information without the material world that we see when we open our eyes, is not present.

This has been explained repeatedly and in detail. What part of it do you not feel has been adequately explained? Afferent vision explains all the phenomena perfectly well, and doesn't have to ignore inconvenient evidence or posit any mysterious unknown factors. And you have repeatedly ignored my explanation of exactly what you keep claiming to want an explanation for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Claiming that your efferent account also makes use of resolution as an explanation doesn't mean there is anything wrong with how afferent vision uses it to explain things. You would have to show that a resolution explanation only makes sense on the efferent account, and you certainly haven't done that.

I think I have.

No, you haven't. What part of the afferent explanation of resolution and range do you think doesn't work? It's not enough to say it doesn't work because the object must be present. That's question-begging. To identify a problem for the afferent model you would have to show not only why it isn't actually what happens (according to you) but why it couldn't possibly be what happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What scientists want people to believe is that beyond the tiniest pixel that can be resolved on film/retina, which requires the actual object being in the camera's field of view (not just the light), we can still detect an image whether it's on film or interpreted in our brain through signals coming from light itself.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Scientists do not tell us that we can still visually detect an image of something beyond our limit of resolution. They don't say that at all.

Stop weaselling and answer my questions, please.

Spacemonkey · #**5749** 01-21-2012, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have absolutely no understanding of efferent vision... You need to first try to recognize the plausibility of the efferent model before coming to the premature conclusion that he is wrong...

If you want or expect me to understand efferent vision or recognise its alleged plausibility, then you'll need to answer my questions about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...you keep basing your logic on the afferent model (even if you don't see it).

The help me see it. Show me exactly where and what the afferent assumptions are in the following set of questions:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

And how about the next set? Where and what are the afferent assumptions here:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

Either show me these alleged afferent assumptions, or answer the questions already.

Bumpity bump bump McBump.

naturalist.atheist · #**5750** 01-21-2012, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounded in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for you to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

ThreeLawsSafe, you seem to have a very limited view of what is possible with non-face to face interactions. Apparently you are unawares of what can happen among pen pals. People can develop deep and caring relationships without direct contact that last for a life time.

And certainly the written word of people who have been long dead has changed the lives of many. The written word is a key method of communications and long standing social structures of all kinds.