A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All nonsense goes through 2 stages: first it is ridiculed, then it is ignored. You have merely re-started the cycle, and dug up something that was rightfully ignored so it could be ridiculed again.

Not true Vivisectus; the fact that you believed Lessans was wrong because firemen are not a condition of fires, reveals your ignorance. I don't mean to be nasty (my god, I have been so mistreated in here and would never wish this on my worst enemy), but your comeback holds absolutely no weight.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I had many others, but since you could not deal with them you chose to ignore them.

Oh really? I answered every one of your objections and you never responded.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The firemen spiel is something patently ridiculous that nevertheless has the same level of support as what your father was stating. I am saying that we have just as much reason to believe it is true as we have for your fathers assertions - none at all. I have explained this before, but you seem to just ignore anything that is inconvenient.

You have no basis upon which to judge whether his knowledge is accurate or not by the answers you gave. I can see right off the bat that you understood nothing. The spiel was a flawed analogy, but you keep using this as a reason to reject the book.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

One of the things you ignore is that we still have absolutely no reason to believe that blame is a condition for justification, or that justification is an absolute requirement for knowingly doing a bad deed.

If you want to learn anything from this book, you're going to have to put your opinions aside temporarily. He was explaining how conscience functions, and this was not his opinion. It appears at first glance that people often harm others with no apparent motive or justification. But if you look deeper, the desire to hurt someone can always be traced to one of the three justifications mentioned below.

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that
self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was previously
hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back ‘an eye for an
eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows absolutely and
positively that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others
if they knew. Blame itself which is a condition of free will and a part
of the present environment permits the consideration of hurt for it is
the price man is willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires;
but when blame is removed so that the advance knowledge that it no
longer exists becomes a new condition of the environment, then the
price he must consider to strike the first blow of hurt is completely
out of reach because he cannot find satisfaction in hurting those who
will refuse to blame him or retaliate in any way.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another is that we also have no explanation why a device that records only light records the same image as our eyes do, if efferent sight is true, or how we can deal with the paradoxical result of being able to receive information from sight without the delay of lightspeed.

I'm getting tired of repeating that there is nothing paradoxical about efferent vision since information is not being transmitted by means of light, therefore lightspeed is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So the only reason my comebacks hold no weight with you is because you reject them not on the basis of logic or observation, but on the sole basis that it contradicts what your father espoused, which you know deep inside it true no matter HOW much evidence to the contrary is piled up.

There is no evidence, there is only misunderstanding. As far as his first discovery, no one seems interested. It floors me because these principles are what will put a permanent end to war and crime.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are being made fun of because what you are presenting as revolutionary new knowledge that it going to save the world simply does not add up, and in stead of admitting that there are problems with it, you come up with all sorts of hilarious mental contortionisms. You regularly contradict yourself without noticing, and come up with more and more surreal solutions to the impossible problem that you are presented with, which is to try to make your fathers ideas correspond with reality. The reason it is so hard is because they do not match, and simply altering reality is just not an option, no matter how much you want it to be.

I have been trying to answer the myriad questions that have been thrown at me, and I don't see where anyone proved that efferent vision is impossible, or where it contradicts SR. Seeing in real time corresponds very nicely with reality even though my answers may have been inadequate for this sophisticated group. The only way this will be resolved is when more empirical studies are done, which I've said many times. For you to jump to the conclusion that I'm just coming up with hilarious mental contortionisms is just another one of your unsuccessful attempts to make me look foolish.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been trying to answer the myriad questions that have been thrown at me, and I don't see where efferent vision is impossible,

Actually, efferent vision is impossible for the simple reason is that efferent vision contradicts the known physiology of the eye.

Arguing about Special Relativity is just another way of making you think about how illogical Lessans' concept of vision really is. It's clearly not working.

All sorts of arguments have been made, but in reality, like LadyShea wrote, you need at least one example where the current theory of vision fails to explain a phenomena. If you can do that, someone may actually take efferent vision seriously.

[Vivisectus]

That is actually a complete lie. You really do not stop at much to hold this nonsense up do you? You only answered with dodges, until in the end you admitted that we just had to accept that it was "just the way conscience works" and that there was nothing forthcoming to support what you were saying.

So you did not in fact deal with the objection at all. You merely tried to waffle over it.

You have no basis upon which to judge whether his knowledge is accurate or not by the answers you gave. I can see right off the bat that you understood nothing. The spiel was a flawed analogy, but you keep using this as a reason to reject the book.

It is not an analogy, as I must have said a hundred times. It is an example of something that is completely unsupported - like your fathers claims.

You can claim what you want - it makes no difference. The reality is that your fathers work is mostly unsupported claims, with some pure nonsense thrown in.

If you want to learn anything from this book, you're going to have to put your opinions aside temporarily. He was explaining how conscience functions, and this was not his opinion. It appears at first glance that people often harm others with no apparent motive or justification. But if you look deeper, the desire to hurt someone can always be traced to one of the three justifications mentioned below.

That is an unsupported claim - not backed up by observation or logical necessity. Once again you dodge the actual objection - that there is no compelling reason to believe it is true - and make claims that you cannot make good on.

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that
self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was previously
hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back ‘an eye for an
eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows absolutely and
positively that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others
if they knew. Blame itself which is a condition of free will and a part
of the present environment permits the consideration of hurt for it is
the price man is willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires;
but when blame is removed so that the advance knowledge that it no
longer exists becomes a new condition of the environment, then the
price he must consider to strike the first blow of hurt is completely
out of reach because he cannot find satisfaction in hurting those who
will refuse to blame him or retaliate in any way.

As I said - unsupported claims. He claims that it is so and leaves it at that. The only reason you are given to believe it is your fathers say-so. Again - no objection has been dealt with, merely more unsupported claims.

I'm getting tired of repeating that there is nothing paradoxical about efferent vision since information is not being transmitted by means of light, therefore lightspeed is irrelevant.

Yet another unsupported claim. You, like your father, simply state that it is so and consider your point proven beyond any reasonable doubt. This is idiocy.

There is no evidence, there is only misunderstanding. As far as his first discovery, no one seems interested. It floors me because these principles are what will put a permanent end to war and crime.

Again - your father claimed that this was so, but provided no evidence that this is the case. Just like you casually disregard real science whenever it contradicts these baseless claims.

I have been trying to answer the myriad questions that have been thrown at me, and I don't see where efferent vision is impossible, or where it contradicts SR. It corresponds very nicely with reality even though my answers may have been inadequate for this sophisticated group. The only way this will be resolved is when more empirical studies are done, which I've said many times. For you to jump to the conclusion that I'm just coming up with hilarious mental contortionisms is just another one of your unsuccessful attempts to make me look foolish.

I know you don't see it. This is because you refuse to. The empirical studies that disprove efferent vision are done every time we take a photograph of a new phenomenon in the heavens that we could not see before, pretty much.

But let us be honest - no study will ever satisfy you that efferent vision is an idiotic idea. All you are interested in is things that confirm your belief. You are a fundamentalist - unable to change your mind no matter what.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm getting tired of repeating that there is nothing paradoxical about efferent vision since information is not being transmitted by means of light, therefore lightspeed is irrelevant.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, it does not matter how the information gets from Point A to Point B. It could be carried by light or Pony Express, or the brain could somehow reach out and acquire it directly.

What matters is that according to SR, information cannot be transmitted faster than light by any means.


That you continue to act as if you cannot understand this simple concept is why you look for all the world to be either a liar, an idiot, or both.

[Doctor X]

Maybe if Einstein did more studies?








What?

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

... but then the eyes and the camera see it as the same time, which is when the light from the event arrives. One year for every light year after the event.

That's not the issue Vivisectus. The issue is whether the light is here and is congruent with efferent vision, as well as a camera using the light to create a picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nonsense. The camera needs the light from the event to be able to record that event, so it would have to wait for this light to arrive. So since we can photograph events from far away and see it at the same time, efferent vision is disproven, unless we assume that whatever is going on with the eyes also happens to light-sensitive chemicals and light-receptors, both of which are specifically designed by us to record light, and light alone.

But that's not the only possibility. I already mentioned that if the light is already here, then we could also be seeing the actual image efferently, but that would negate your entire proposition of afferent vision which is your starting point. That's why it doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then finally we also have to assume that we have somehow miscalculated the speed of other particles such as nutrinos, which we can measure in a lab along with the speed of light, as they arrive at a predictable time after we can see the event.

If those particles were part of the explosion, then it makes sense that when those particles got here, we would be seeing the remnants of that explosion, especially if the explosion was too far away to be seen with the naked eye.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And why do we have to consider this in the first place? What observation is it that made your father decide that sight had to be efferent? I cannot find anything in the book that explains why this is a reasonable assumption.

I gave his reasons many times. It has to do with how the brain becomes conditioned, which could not occur if images were being interpreted from chemical-electrical signals.

I can feel your resentment, along with everyone else. If people can't give him the benefit of the doubt, and refuse to proceed to his most important discovery, there's no point in continuing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? I answered every one of your objections and you never responded.

You have NEVER answered a SINGLE objection from ANYONE, you lying sack of shit.

To you, an answer to an objection is, "Lessans was right. The proof of the pudding is in the eating!"

Hey, you sack of shit, how about answering the following question: In the relativity train experiment, it is conclusively demonstrated that information is carried to the eye and brain in delayed time, making real-time seeing IMPOSSIBLE. My question is: when are you going to stop stealing $39.95 a pop for your asswit father's book from gullible people?



See if you can answer THAT objection!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

since information is not being transmitted by means of light, therefore lightspeed is irrelevant.

The information is being transmitted somehow, though. You insist it isn't by means of light, but you fail to offer a mechanism at all, let alone one that doesn't challenge various principles of physics.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been trying to answer the myriad questions that have been thrown at me, and I don't see where anyone proved that efferent vision is impossible...

The eye is anatomically afferent, not efferent, asswit.

or where it contradicts SR. Seeing in real time corresponds very nicely with reality

Nope!



See train thought exerpiment mooted by Albert Einstein that disproves real-time seeing, idiot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm getting tired of repeating that there is nothing paradoxical about efferent vision since information is not being transmitted by means of light, therefore lightspeed is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As has been repeatedly explained to you, it does not matter how the information gets from Point A to Point B. It could be carried by light or Pony Express, or the brain could somehow reach out and acquire it directly.

What matters is that according to SR, information cannot be transmitted faster than light by any means.

We'll have to wait and see, won't we? I don't think the definition SR used was in reference to information that could be obtained by efferent sight, which has nothing to do with information transmission of any kind. I already explained this to LadyShea. The brain is constantly taking photographs and recording them with no delay. Please don't get confused over the example of the laser pen where information in the light is being transferred 50 yds. away.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That you continue to act as if you cannot understand this simple concept is why you look for all the world to be either a liar, an idiot, or both.

Given that you can't seem to control your impulse to call me names, this is a clear indication to me that it is time to close this discussion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The information is being transmitted somehow, though. You insist it isn't by means of light, but you fail to offer a mechanism at all, let alone one that doesn't challenge various principles of physics.

I actually did. I explained that if sight is efferent, the brain, through the eyes, is photographing and recording everything it sees without any time delay. That doesn't mean that information that is transferred by means of lightwaves doesn't have a time delay. Do you see the difference? One is how the brain works, and the other is how light works.

Anyway, if you want to continue the discussion, would you mind asking me questions that relate to his other discovery? If you don't have enough knowledge to ask a pertinent question, please read the first three chapters.

[The Lone Ranger]

Why don't you just come right out and say it: "I believe that Einstein was wrong."

It would be a lot simpler and more honest. And ironically, it would make you look less stupid than do your persistent attempts to get around SR.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by pissgirl

I actually did. I explained...

You didn't explain ANYTHING, pancake head.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by pissgirl

I'm getting tired of repeating that there is nothing paradoxical about efferent vision since information is not being transmitted by means of light, therefore lightspeed is irrelevant.

HOW IS THE INFORMATION BEING TRANSMITTED, THEN, IDIOT?

It does not matter how the information is conveyed. It CANNOT exceed light speed, hence real-time seeing is IMPOSSIBLE.

We'll have to wait and see, won't we? I don't think the definition SR used was in reference to information that could be obtained by efferent sight, which has nothing to do with information transmission of any kind.

Oh, it doesn't, does it? Seeing the sun turned on is not acquiring INFORMATION? Are you out of whatever ball of kludge passes for your cotton-picking mind?

Learning that the sun is turned on is the very definition of information. You and your idiot father would have it that we learn this fact instantaneously, and this is impossible under relativity theory. So Lessans is wrong about this, as he is about everything else that he wrote.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been trying to answer the myriad questions that have been thrown at me, and I don't see where efferent vision is impossible,

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Actually, efferent vision is impossible for the simple reason is that efferent vision contradicts the known physiology of the eye.

Not if all the parts of the eye are necessary.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Arguing about Special Relativity is just another way of making you think about how illogical Lessans' concept of vision really is. It's clearly not working.

I don't think efferent vision contradicts special relativity. It makes sense that a person on a train would see lightning strike first in the front of the train and then see it strike the back of the train, where a person on the ground would see the lightning strike both the front and back at the same time. This is consistent with the following definition of lightning which travels at a finite rate of speed, about half the speed of light.

Lightning ISN'T light... it produces light, but is, in fact, the transfer of electrical energy through the atmosphere, which has some resistance properties.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All sorts of arguments have been made, but in reality, like LadyShea wrote, you need at least one example where the current theory of vision fails to explain a phenomena. If you can do that, someone may actually take efferent vision seriously.

I said all along that no one will take his claim seriously until studies conclude that dogs can't recognize their master from a picture, which they should easily be able to do if images are traveling to their eye and being interpreted by their brain. There would have to be many other replicable experiments to give credence to his claim, but we're never going to find out here, so let's change the subject, okay?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by pissgirl

if you want to continue the discussion, would you mind asking me questions that relate to his other discovery? If you don't have enough knowledge to ask a pertinent question, please read the first three chapters.

Fuck off, pissgirl.

Of course you want to change the topic, after this debacle for you and your father.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Why don't you just come right out and say it: "I believe that Einstein was wrong."

It would be a lot simpler and more honest. And ironically, it would make you look less stupid than do your persistent attempts to get around SR.

I do not see any inconsistency and I don't believe Einstein was wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: Nobody has done more to make plain the sheer lunacy of Lessans' claims -- the extent that one must ignore and even deny thoroughly-tested theories, reams of experimental data, and even reality itself in order to support them -- than has peacegirl herself.

By all means, keep up the good work!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not see any inconsistency and I don't believe Einstein was wrong.

Hey, peacegirl, in Einstein's thought experiment in which he introduces special relativity, the observer on the ground sees the lightning flashes simultaneously while the observer on the train sees THE SAME FLASHES sequentially. If they were seeing in "real time," it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to disagree on when the flashes happened. So Loony Lessans's "real-time" seeing is directly and fatally contradicted by relativity theory.

Too bad for you and Loonie Lessans.

[davidm]

By the way, peacegirl, earlier in this discussion you said that you thought relativity theory was wrong.

Are you changing your stupid story again, just like you changed your stupid story about how cameras work, because you can't even keep your fantasies straight?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Maybe if Einstein did more studies?

What?
--J.D.

Maybe Lessans should try to talk to him.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think efferent vision contradicts special relativity. It makes sense that a person on a train would see lightning strike first in the front of the train and then see it strike the back of the train, where a person on the ground would see the lightning strike both the front and back at the same time. This is consistent with the following definition of lightning which travels at a finite rate of speed, about half the speed of light.

Lightning ISN'T light... it produces light, but is, in fact, the transfer of electrical energy through the atmosphere, which has some resistance properties.

We are talking about the LIGHT from the lightning; that travels at velocity c. Because the two observers on the train will not agree on the simultaneity of the LIGHT that they see, even though it is the SAME LIGHT, real-time seeing is proved to be impossible.

Q.E.D.

Put a fork in you, like so:

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I had many others, but since you could not deal with them you chose to ignore them.

Oh really? I answered every one of your objections and you never responded.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is actually a complete lie. You really do not stop at much to hold this nonsense up do you? You only answered with dodges, until in the end you admitted that we just had to accept that it was "just the way conscience works" and that there was nothing forthcoming to support what you were saying.

So you did not in fact deal with the objection at all. You merely tried to waffle over it.

We're not going to get anywhere with this. You can't even, temporarily, accept that his observations were correct, therefore we cannot move on.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The firemen spiel is something patently ridiculous that nevertheless has the same level of support as what your father was stating. I am saying that we have just as much reason to believe it is true as we have for your fathers assertions - none at all. I have explained this before, but you seem to just ignore anything that is inconvenient.

You have no basis upon which to judge whether his knowledge is accurate or not by the answers you gave. I can see right off the bat that you understood nothing. The spiel was a flawed analogy, but you keep using this as a reason to reject the book.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is not an analogy, as I must have said a hundred times. It is an example of something that is completely unsupported - like your fathers claims.

Whatever Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You can claim what you want - it makes no difference. The reality is that your fathers work is mostly unsupported claims, with some pure nonsense thrown in.

Whatever you say.

If you want to learn anything from this book, you're going to have to put your opinions aside temporarily. He was explaining how conscience functions, and this was not his opinion. It appears at first glance that people often harm others with no apparent motive or justification. But if you look deeper, the desire to hurt someone can always be traced to one of the three justifications mentioned below.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is an unsupported claim - not backed up by observation or logical necessity. Once again you dodge the actual objection - that there is no compelling reason to believe it is true - and make claims that you cannot make good on.

If his observation is correct, the way conscience works is absolutely 100% supported.

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that
self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was previously
hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back ‘an eye for an
eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows absolutely and
positively that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others
if they knew. Blame itself which is a condition of free will and a part
of the present environment permits the consideration of hurt for it is
the price man is willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires;
but when blame is removed so that the advance knowledge that it no
longer exists becomes a new condition of the environment, then the
price he must consider to strike the first blow of hurt is completely
out of reach because he cannot find satisfaction in hurting those who
will refuse to blame him or retaliate in any way.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As I said - unsupported claims. He claims that it is so and leaves it at that. The only reason you are given to believe it is your fathers say-so. Again - no objection has been dealt with, merely more unsupported claims.

Now you are getting to be a broken record. You aren't even giving him a chance. These are not mere assertions, and you would see this if you carefully read the book. But no, you refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt because you demand empirical evidence before even carefully reading how these principles are applied. Something is very wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another is that we also have no explanation why a device that records only light records the same image as our eyes do, if efferent sight is true, or how we can deal with the paradoxical result of being able to receive information from sight without the delay of lightspeed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm getting tired of repeating that there is nothing paradoxical about efferent vision since information is not being transmitted by means of light, therefore lightspeed is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yet another unsupported claim. You, like your father, simply state that it is so and consider your point proven beyond any reasonable doubt. This is idiocy.

He said this knowledge could be empirically proven Vivisectus. These observations are valid because they work. You would see this once you saw how these principles have the power to change behavior and increase responsibility. You aren't giving him a chance.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So the only reason my comebacks hold no weight with you is because you reject them not on the basis of logic or observation, but on the sole basis that it contradicts what your father espoused, which you know deep inside it true no matter HOW much evidence to the contrary is piled up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no evidence, there is only misunderstanding. As far as his first discovery, no one seems interested. It floors me because these principles are what will put a permanent end to war and crime.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again - your father claimed that this was so, but provided no evidence that this is the case. Just like you casually disregard real science whenever it contradicts these baseless claims.

The verdict is still out, as far as efferent vision, but if you want to use this against me, then go ahead. Conclude that Lessans was wrong, but don't tell me that this isn't a premature conclusion, because that's exactly what it is.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are being made fun of because what you are presenting as revolutionary new knowledge that it going to save the world simply does not add up, and in stead of admitting that there are problems with it, you come up with all sorts of hilarious mental contortionisms. You regularly contradict yourself without noticing, and come up with more and more surreal solutions to the impossible problem that you are presented with, which is to try to make your fathers ideas correspond with reality. The reason it is so hard is because they do not match, and simply altering reality is just not an option, no matter how much you want it to be.

I have been trying to answer the myriad questions that have been thrown at me, and I don't see where efferent vision is impossible, or where it contradicts SR. It corresponds very nicely with reality even though my answers may have been inadequate for this sophisticated group. The only way this will be resolved is when more empirical studies are done, which I've said many times. For you to jump to the conclusion that I'm just coming up with hilarious mental contortionisms is just another one of your unsuccessful attempts to make me look foolish.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know you don't see it. This is because you refuse to. The empirical studies that disprove efferent vision are done every time we take a photograph of a new phenomenon in the heavens that we could not see before, pretty much.

But let us be honest - no study will ever satisfy you that efferent vision is an idiotic idea. All you are interested in is things that confirm your belief. You are a fundamentalist - unable to change your mind no matter what.

Not if the empirical tests prove him wrong, but they have to be reliable. Please don't tell me that this isn't something scientists often do to skew the results in the direction they want to see. But you wouldn't call them fundamentalists.

[LadyShea]

You have got to be kidding me peacegirl

I have asked you three times now why the dog experiment is at all pertinent to this discussion, and you have ignored me

It has been explained to you dozens of times that seeing is transmission of information by definition. Information about the object (Point A) is acquired in the brain (Point B).

You need to explain how the information is conveyed. Just saying "it is seen" is not an explanation of anything at all...in fact you are basically saying nothing more than "we see what we see when we see it because we can see it".

EXPLAIN it or admit you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said all along that no one will take his claim seriously until studies conclude that dogs can't recognize their master from a picture, which they should easily be able to do if images are traveling to their eye and being interpreted by their brain.

4th time. Either respond or concede your whole line about the dogs is nothing but a red herring to get us off your back about relativity and causality because you haven't a clue what is being discussed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Third time's a charm?