A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by 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.

Precisely!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

I swear, I don't see where this phenomenon conflicts because we're talking about two completely different things. They are mutually exclusive.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Nonsense. There is no reason at all that efferent vision is required to explain conditioning and strong neural connections/associations. The brain is perfectly capable of creating such strong associations (which are actually physical neural pathways) that the person believes even complete falsehoods and absurdities to be the absolute truth (like, for example, that blacks are an inferior race for a well known phenomena based mostly on childhood conditioning).

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I swear, I don't see where this phenomenon conflicts because we're talking about two completely different things. They are mutually exclusive.

BULLSHIT!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Real time seeing is the most important discovery in the whole book, if correct, because it turns all of physics on it's head.

The rest of the book is rather boring unsupported assertions about psychology, and even the areas I am interested in, free will v. determinism, are sloppily conveyed and poorly reasoned.

I'll tell you what though. I'll ask 1 question. If you can answer it in a straightforward and non-evasive manner, without resorting to "You'll just have to take my word for it that Lessans made an astute observation" I might consider discussing some other aspect for awhile

You said he made a discovery about death, that you won't reveal but you keep referring to. Anyway, later, you said empiricism wouldn't work with this discovery because one would have to die to gather hard data.

So, my question is, how did he personally observe and discover anything about death, before dying himself?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I swear, I don't see where this phenomenon conflicts because we're talking about two completely different things. They are mutually exclusive.

No, you are both talking about seeing. How is it mutually exclusive?

[LadyShea]

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

If he is correct, then he was correct? Really? You think that's a compelling argument?

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If he is correct, then he was correct? Really? You think that's a compelling argument?

Obligatory xkcd.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, you are both talking about seeing. How is it mutually exclusive?

We know what peacegirl will say. She has said it again and again. She will say: “Efferent seeing and afferent seeing are mutually exclusive. Seeing instantaneously might be impossible for afferent seeing, but not for The Great Man’s efferent seeing.” Something to that effect.

Now let’s home in on the key point, and watch peacegirl squirm, evade, prevaricate and ultimately just stipulate. When all else fails, she falls back on her empty, unsupported assertions: “Efferent seeing does not contradict the special theory of relativity.”

But it DOES.

The key point is that it’s irrelevant HOW we see. The violation of relativity is blatant. That’s the part she weasels out of addressing.

It’s simple to show:

1. Lessans claimed that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see this IMMEDIATELY. Is that not his claim, peacegirl? Hey, it’s in your Holy Book!

2. Learning that the sun has been turned on is GAINING INFORMATION, by definition! Are you prepared to deny such an obvious fact?

From 1. and 2. immediately follows the conclusion: People (says The Great Man) are able to acquire information INSTANTANEOUSLY. That is the point. We can, for the sake of argument, assume that Lessans’ ridiculous “efferent seeing” is true. But if it’s true then, by Lessans’ own descriptions, it entails instantaneous acquisition of knowledge, regardless of HOW that knowledge is acquired under his “theory.” Thus, peacegirl’s claim that the efferent seeing is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity, because, under efferent seeing, no information is conveyed by light to the eyes, is a red herring; indeed it is wholly beside the point. The point is that Lessans holds that we acquire information (somehow!) INSTANTANEOUSLY.

And that is what the theory of relativity rules out! So Lessans’ claim of instantaneous acquisition of information is in direct conflict with the theory of relativity. Q. E. D.

Now, peacegirl, you’ve already changed your story on this. Earlier you said, without providing any evidence, that relativity theory was wrong. Now you maintain that it is correct, but not in conflict with efferent seeing. But I have just shown that it IS in conflict with efferent seeing. So which way will you wiggle and weasel now?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Something is very wrong.

Most of us have known that for 230+ pages now.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

??

I see with my little eye, - light!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't tell me that this isn't something scientists often do to skew the results in the direction they want to see.

Astronomers (scientists) have been searching for planets orbiting other stars for many years. One astronomer had been making observations and had found a star that showed that it had a planet orbiting it. At a meeting of astronomers he was to anounce this discovery, and he said the data could mean the, discovery of a planet, some unknown effect on the star, or an error in the data. On stage in front of the assembly he admitted it was the latter. He had found that he had not accounted for the motion of the Earth and it had affected his readings. He admitted his mistake rather than fudging the data to claim a discovery that he hadn't made, and most scientists will do the same, because there are other scientists who will double check the results, unlike Lessans who went it alone and did not have anyone check his work to look for errors, of which there were many.

[davidm]

One can understand why peacegirl is so desperate to change the topic from vision and light, given that Lessans has been proven to be undeniably wrong, and given that peacegirl’s pathetic attempts to explicate this farrago of nonsense amount to special pleading, red herrings, hand-waving, argument by assertion without evidence and changing of her story: cameras do, and do not, take pictures without a time delay; special relativity is, and is not, a correct theory, and so on.

But what does she want to change the topic TO? We’ve already broached some of it. Shall we talk about how Seymour wants to have a bit of the ol’ rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table, or a little hide the sausage in bed, and then Seymour gets to sleep in his own double bed, and this strange state of affairs will be true of EVERYONE? Shall we talk about how people in the New World will run around half naked, fall in love with each other’s genitals at first glance and never fall out of love with their partner’s genitals? Shall we talk about how gays in the new world will be greatly reduced in numbers, and how in the new world Seymour will be regarded in the same high intellectual esteem as educated scientists and philosophers, even though he isn’t? Shall we talk about his letters to President Nixon and President Carter, and his hilarious lawsuit against the latter? Shall we talk about how to wake a child is to blame him for sleeping? Does she want to go into the part where Lessans states that we shan’t stop little children from smoking and drinking, because that is to blame them for their desires? Shall we talk about how Mom, in addition to putting out on the dinner table, is going to have to undertake a special study of the art of cooking and make Goddamned sure those spaghetti and meatballs are served on the dot at dinner on Monday nights? Shall we talk about how Lessans opposes vaccination and is against doctors, and how in the new world any old idiot like himself can hang a doctor’s sign on a shingle and be considered a doctor? Does peacegirl REALLY want to talk about this stuff?

[Vivisectus]

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.

If the light from the event is already here, then the event happened as long ago as the distance from us to the event divided by the speed of light - so one year for every lightyear. We have measured the speed of light quite precisely, by various different means, so we know that much for sure.

It has nothing to do with any theory about vision at all, yet. It simply means that we detect light when it arrives, and that light has a limited speed.

Amazingly enough, every single time the light arrives at the exact same time when we can see it.

No random word-salad is going to change that.

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.

LOLZ! Ah I see - so we see the light arriving from the event, but we see it efferently, and even though it forms an image this image was not in the light but is an image OF the light, right? So we see incoming light, but we see the incoming light efferently when it comes in range?

Very weaselly - but it still doesn't work. For starters, it just moves the relativity problem a bit closer to home - it doesn't really change much. Secondly, we would still not have any image on the camera for the duration it would take the light to cross the gap between the range of our efferent sight and us, and we have already seen that this is at least 8 minutes, and probably more. However, we can photograph these events at the same moment we can see them.

This is a gap strategy - it doesn't solve much, and when you think about it it cause many more problems than it solves. It also contradicts the story of the man on Rigel looking at the earth - he would indeed not see Columbus arriving. He would see a beach with Columbus's footprints still on it, because he was there 8+ minutes ago.

Your father clearly stated that, with a telescope, efferent vision could have an 800 lightyear range. We have telescopes with greater range than that, but alas, they only allow us to magnify an image, which means that it amplifies a small part of our normal field of vision and enlarges the image, working with light that is coming in from as many years ago as the source is lightyears away.

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.

But this is not a logical conclusion - conditioning can and does happen in many ways, and does not require a new theory of vision. This is what makes this book especially tragic - some of the more idiotic assertions in it are completely unnecessary. If only your father had bothered to actually look into the neurology of sight and recognition, he would have seen that there is absolutely no reason to re-invent sight and still get his idea across. Hell, he could have even made it sound all scientific. Unfortunately, studying fields he made claims about was not a part of his modus operandi. If only Durant had written about it...

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.

Aaaaand we are back to making excuses for the nonsense: it is all because of meanies. Well done though - you lasted almost a whole post.

[Vivisectus]

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.

Failure to address noted.

Whatever Vivisectus.

Probably the first honest answer I got out of you yet. You have no answer, but you do not care, and do not change your mind regardless.

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

It has already been pointing out that that boils down to "Yeah but if he is right, then that means he is right."

True, bit beside the point, as we still have no compelling reason to assume that this is so.

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.

Back to the blame game. Too bad - you only lasted half a post this time.

I see nothing of the kind in this book - no logically necessary conclusion, nor any other evidence. All that is there is your father saying it is so.

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.

He said lots of things, but he didn't bother to even propose a means by which to test it. It is just claims, grandiose, unsupported claims. I can claim to be the king of the fairies, but if I do I better have some damn good back-up to that claim, or else people will think I am a loony, and rightfully so.

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.

Since a light-detector will detect what I can see at the same moment that I see it, I conclude that efferent sight is disproven. There should be a gap between seeing and detecting, but there isn't.

That is not premature. It means that the theory of efferent sight needs to go back to the drawing board.

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.

LOL you are already making excuses for tests that haven't even been done yet. You know they will show your father to be wrong, and you are pre-emptively making excuses for STILL not changing your mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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?

It took me a little time to analyze whether there was a conflict davidm. And I truly don't see any. I'm not trying to dodge, elude, get away with, fit in, deny, shift my position, close my ears and go "na na na na na", or anything else you care to throw in. I'm just trying to grapple with the questions posed to figure out how efferent sight would work in reference to those questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Failure to address noted.

Probably the first honest answer I got out of you yet. You have no answer, but you do not care, and do not change your mind regardless.

It has already been pointing out that that boils down to "Yeah but if he is right, then that means he is right."

True, bit beside the point, as we still have no compelling reason to assume that this is so.

Back to the blame game. Too bad - you only lasted half a post this time.

I see nothing of the kind in this book - no logically necessary conclusion, nor any other evidence. All that is there is your father saying it is so.

He said lots of things, but he didn't bother to even propose a means by which to test it. It is just claims, grandiose, unsupported claims. I can claim to be the king of the fairies, but if I do I better have some damn good back-up to that claim, or else people will think I am a loony, and rightfully so.

Since a light-detector will detect what I can see at the same moment that I see it, I conclude that efferent sight is disproven. There should be a gap between seeing and detecting, but there isn't.

That is not premature. It means that the theory of efferent sight needs to go back to the drawing board.

LOL you are already making excuses for tests that haven't even been done yet. You know they will show your father to be wrong, and you are pre-emptively making excuses for STILL not changing your mind.

I do believe he is right, but that doesn't mean I'm pre-emptively making excuses. What are you doing then? I have no shot in hell in here because of the belief that I'm a fundamentalist by definition. You're exempt because you believe all of the accumulated literature on the subject has already been done, so any kind of disputation is already null and void. You are basing your judgment about my father on the belief that his observations were assertions. That is where the problem lies. These were not simple assertions, and until you get this through your head, this thread is over. You won't even consider reading any further, so there's nothing to discuss. All there has been in here from day one is "case closed" based on the way you are critiquing this work, which has its own set of flaws. How can anyone decide whether a work has validity if they haven't read it or studied the principles before passing judgment? It's really sad because you are all missing out, and you as stubborn as mules. You don't think you are making an advance judgment against him before all the facts are in? What if it is not him that had the problem, what then? Only detailed empirical testing will answer who is right, but obviously it has to be the right tests, which could give a false/positive result in favor of afferent vision because scientists want the results to support their beliefs. That's the biggest danger of all, and could ruin it for Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Maybe Lessans should try to talk to him.

I wish. I'm sure they would be buddies and defend each other's work because there's no conflict.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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:

Absolutely wrong. People can see something efferently (real time vision) and that same light can appear different depending on the observer's position and the physics involved.

[Vivisectus]

I do believe he is right, but that doesn't mean I'm pre-emptively making excuses.

Yes you were. You were already saying that the tests could be wrong, that they had to meet your many criteria for being the right kind of test, etc.

In other words, you were preparing to ignore any evidence you do not like.

What are you doing then? I have no shot in hell in here because of the belief that I'm a fundamentalist by definition. You're exempt because you believe all of the accumulated literature on the subject has already been done, so any kind of disputation is already null and void.

I expect a claim to be backed up with logical or empirical evidence. If no logically compelling case is made, and no evidence is presented, then what is being presented is an opinion, no matter how often the author assures me this is not the case. Just because your father said it was not an opinion doesn't make it so - you need to build a case for it. This case is non-existent in the book.

I also draw conclusions from simple tests - a light-detector detects the light from an event at the same time I see that event. For efferent sight to be true, there should be a gap - but there isn't.

You are basing your judgment about my father on the belief that his observations were assertions. That is where the problem lies. These were not simple assertions, and until you get this through your head, this thread is over.

They do not meet the criteria for anything else.

What you are saying is that in order to even have a discussion with you I must treat your fathers thoughts as true because it was him doing the thinking. I can then discuss anything I want - but first, I must treat what he says as correct without critical evaluation.

I am glad you finally admit that to be convinced by your fathers ideas, you must suspend your critical analysis and, in a word, be convinced. So in order to believe what your father says is correct, you must in fact assume that what he says is correct. The bible is the word of god because the bible says so, and it is the word of god.

You won't even consider reading any further, so there's nothing to discuss. All there has been in here is "case closed" before the evidence is in.

More endless claims of lazyness, closed-mindedness, etc etc etc.

How can anyone decide whether a work has validity if they haven't read it or studied the principles before passing judgment?

I have done both. I just reached the conclusion that they are not much good.

It's really sad because you are all missing out, and you as stubborn as mules. You don't think you are making an advance judgment against him before all the facts are in?

Not really. We tested the claims, and found them unsupported at best, patently impossible at their most silly. That is a pretty good reason for concluding that at the very least, this whole system needs to be re-worked from start to finish - and that is being more generous to this book than it deserves.

Remember - your father is the one making the claims. It is up to him to prove that he is right, otherwise we are being advocated to blindly trust someone without being able to check if he is right. I see no reason to assume that he is right - no compelling logic, and no evidence. Just say-so.

What if it is not him that had the problem, what then? Only detailed empirical testing will answer who is right, but obviously it has to be the right tests, which could give a false/positive result in favor of afferent vision because scientists want the results to support their beliefs. That's the biggest danger of all, and could ruin it for Lessans.

There is a very simple empirical test - spot something, and show that you are unable to photograph it. This has NEVER happened, and many times we have photographed events that happened a long, long way off WITHIN A FEW MINUTES. Efferent vision predicts we should be able to see things that we cannot photograph. This is not the case - so efferent vision is disproven.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

What you can't seem to grasp because you are stuck on the word "convey, is that it doesn't fit into this definition because nothing is being transmitted. It is seen. There is no time element involved because the external world is there to be seen, not to receive information on the waves of light. The truth is "we see what we see when we see it...BECAUSE WE CAN SEE IT. That is a true statement. If he is correct, the brain focuses on outside stimuli because of inside stimuli sending electrical impulses (which does conveying and transmit information) to the brain, which is the conducting link that causes a change in the brain to begin focusing on what it is experiencing by the other senses. It charges the brain to do something, not to receive something. That is a fair analysis, which doesn't require the images to be in the light and decoded by the brain itself. Light is also what allows the brain to take photographs because LIGHT IS A NECESSARY CONDITION. This explanation does not negate Einstein, nor does it cause information to be conveyed faster than the speed of light when you recognize that the speed that it took the brain to receive impulses from the the other senses fits within the definition because they are "sense organs".

[Vivisectus]

Pray tell what other sense alerts my brain to the presence of a supernova so that my brain may project it?

Indeed - i can see it because I can see it is a true statement. It is called a tautology.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can anyone decide whether a work has validity if they haven't read it or studied the principles before passing judgment?

That's perhaps the most hypocritical statement you've made yet!

After all, you are the one who insists that practically everything we know about the physiology of sight, the chemistry of phototransduction, the principles of optics, the nature of light, and even our understanding of Relativity is wrong -- despite your near-total ignorance of these fields, and your repeatedly-declared refusal to actually educate yourself about the scientific consensus in these fields.

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more hypocritical.

[peacegirl]

I do believe he is right, but that doesn't mean I'm pre-emptively making excuses.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes you were. You were already saying that the tests could be wrong, that they had to meet your many criteria for being the right kind of test, etc.

In other words, you were preparing to ignore any evidence you do not like.

How can you draw that kind of conclusion from what I just said? I want the tests to be reliable, so that we can know the truth. I am prepared to accept evidence that is true evidence, not a scheme to make either side look right.

What are you doing then? I have no shot in hell in here because of the belief that I'm a fundamentalist by definition. You're exempt because you believe all of the accumulated literature on the subject has already been done, so any kind of disputation is already null and void.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I expect a claim to be backed up with logical or empirical evidence. If no logically compelling case is made, and no evidence is presented, then what is being presented is an opinion, no matter how often the author assures me this is not the case. Just because your father said it was not an opinion doesn't make it so - you need to build a case for it. This case is non-existent in the book.

I can't convince you to believe that his observations were more than an opinion, or an assertion, so I'm not going to even try. All I can do is to ask you to be less accusatory, and more patient. You've got to read the book in a step by step fashion. As we move along, you will see more clearly how this new world is actually possible. If you still don't believe it, then I'm not going to clobber you. But you have to give him half a chance. I wish people in here would all read the first chapter. Then we can at least be on the same page, and have a decent discussion. Then people would read Chapter Two, and then we can have a decent discussion. Then people would read Chapter Three, and then we can have a decent discussion based on what came before, until we reach the end of the book. Then you are in the position to agree or not to agree, and if all is said and done, and you still think more testing is required, then that's what he would have wanted because no one will argue with a result that backs up his claims.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I also draw conclusions from simple tests - a light-detector detects the light from an event at the same time I see that event. For efferent sight to be true, there should be a gap - but there isn't.

There should never be a gap because the event that is seen from the light (the film) is the same exact timing that someone would see the real event if efferent vision is true.

You are basing your judgment about my father on the belief that his observations were assertions. That is where the problem lies. These were not simple assertions, and until you get this through your head, this thread is over.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

They do not meet the criteria for anything else.

What you are saying is that in order to even have a discussion with you I must treat your fathers thoughts as true because it was him doing the thinking. I can then discuss anything I want - but first, I must treat what he says as correct without critical evaluation.

No, that's not what I mean. But some of the premises that people are using are based on the acceptance of afferent vision, therefore it appears as if efferent vision couldn't be possible. That's why I think empirical testing is in order in this situation, and there's no point to go round and round the mountain again and again and again because there will be nothing that can be definitive just by rehashing the same thing in different words.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am glad you finally admit that to be convinced by your fathers ideas, you must suspend your critical analysis and, in a word, be convinced. So in order to believe what your father says is correct, you must in fact assume that what he says is correct. The bible is the word of god because the bible says so, and it is the word of god.

No, I'm not saying that at all, but I see what people are doing. It's good to be a critical thinker, and to be objective, but after the facts are in, not before.

You won't even consider reading any further, so there's nothing to discuss. All there has been in here is "case closed" before the evidence is in.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

More endless claims of lazyness, closed-mindedness, etc etc etc.

I am not calling people lazy, but there's some fear that would stop them from reading the book. I believe they think they would be suckers. The way davidm and LadyShea took sentences out of context has made the book unrecognizable. This is a very serious stumbling block and I don't know if we can get beyond it.

How can anyone decide whether a work has validity if they haven't read it or studied the principles before passing judgment?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have done both. I just reached the conclusion that they are not much good.

You have given me two refutations that don't add up, and that's your critique? Are you kidding me? If you think that this is an accurate estimate of the book, please don't read it. You will chop it up before ever finishing it. That's a big danger. People are not reading it to learn; they are reading it to judge. It's amazing to me how different the outcome will be if you just hold off the judgment. Judgment Day will come soon enough Vivisectus.

It's really sad because you are all missing out, and you as stubborn as mules. You don't think you are making an advance judgment against him before all the facts are in?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not really. We tested the claims, and found them unsupported at best, patently impossible at their most silly. That is a pretty good reason for concluding that at the very least, this whole system needs to be re-worked from start to finish - and that is being more generous to this book than it deserves.

Forget Chapter Four for now. If you can't do that, then don't read it. It's your loss, trust me. His knowledge does not need to be re-worked. If you are going to continue to use your little refutation against this man's work, then I won't be able to discuss his first discovery with you anymore, because your comeback will be the same old "he hasn't proven that this is how conscience works" or "firemen are not conditions for fires, therefore blame is not a condition for justification".

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Remember - your father is the one making the claims. It is up to him to prove that he is right, otherwise we are being advocated to blindly trust someone without being able to check if he is right. I see no reason to assume that he is right - no compelling logic, and no evidence. Just say-so.

That's because you are in the "empirical testing is the only way to truth" camp. You will never be able to understand that observation and reasoning can be spot on, if you won't let go of that epistemological framework temporarily.

What if it is not him that had the problem, what then? Only detailed empirical testing will answer who is right, but obviously it has to be the right tests, which could give a false/positive result in favor of afferent vision because scientists want the results to support their beliefs. That's the biggest danger of all, and could ruin it for Lessans.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is a very simple empirical test - spot something, and show that you are unable to photograph it. This has NEVER happened, and many times we have photographed events that happened a long, long way off WITHIN A FEW MINUTES. Efferent vision predicts we should be able to see things that we cannot photograph. This is not the case - so efferent vision is disproven.

It will never happen if the light is already here. This does not negate his claim one iota; it actually supports it.

[Vivisectus]

I can't convince you to believe that his observations were more than an opinion, or an assertion, so I'm not going to even try. All I can do is to ask you to be less accusatory, and more patient. You've got to read the book in a step by step fashion. As we move along, you will see more clearly how this new world is actually possible. If you still don't believe it, then I'm not going to clobber you. But you have to give him half a chance. I wish people in here would all read the first chapter. Then we can at least be on the same page, and have a decent discussion. Then people would read Chapter Two, and then we can have a decent discussion. Then people would read Chapter Three, and then we can have a decent discussion based on what came before, until we reach the end of the book. Then you are in the position to agree or not to agree, and if all is said and done, and you still think more testing is required, then that's what he would have wanted because no one will argue with a result that backs up his claims.

I HAVE looked at it, and this was my conclusion - unsupported.

There should never be a gap because the event that is seen from the light (the film) is the same exact timing that someone would see the real event if efferent vision is true.

The light-detector needs to wait for the light from the event to arrive. Thus there would be a gap.

No, that's not what I mean. But some of the premises that people are using are based on the acceptance of afferent vision, therefore it appears as if efferent vision couldn't be possible. That's why I think empirical testing is in order in this situation, and there's no point to go round and round the mountain again and again and again because there will be nothing that can be definitive just by rehashing the same thing in different words.

That is just a dodge. The test is simple - if efferent vision is possible, then we should see things first, and the light from that event should arrive later.

No, I'm not saying that at all, but I see what people are doing. It's good to be a critical thinker, and to be objective, but after the facts are in, not before.

I beg to differ. You explicitly said that I had to assume your fathers observations were correct, and that that would allow you to make sense of the book. However, that is trying the horse before the cart.

I am not calling people lazy, but there's some fear that would stop them from reading the book. I believe they think they would be suckers. The way davidm and LadyShea took sentences out of context has made the book unrecognizable. This is a very serious stumbling block and I don't know if we can get beyond it.

Then stop claiming I did not read the book.

You have given me two refutations that don't add up, and that's your critique? Are you kidding me? If you think that this is an accurate estimate of the book, please don't read it. You will chop it up before ever finishing it. That's a big danger. People are not reading it to learn; they are reading it to judge. It's amazing to me how different the outcome will be if you just hold off the judgment. Judgment Day will come soon enough Vivisectus

.

I have given you several that you were unable to deal with in any way. The most important one is the lack of support. You are still dancing around that one now.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not really. We tested the claims, and found them unsupported at best, patently impossible at their most silly. That is a pretty good reason for concluding that at the very least, this whole system needs to be re-worked from start to finish - and that is being more generous to this book than it deserves.

Forget Chapter Four for now. If you can't do that, then don't read it. It's your loss, trust me. His knowledge does not need to be re-worked. If you are going to continue to use your little refutation against this man's work, then I won't be able to discuss his first discovery with you anymore, because your comeback will be the same old "he hasn't proven that this is how conscience works" or "firemen are not conditions for fires, therefore blame is not a condition for justification".

Your inability to defend it is duly noted. It is not proven - or supported in any way - and is therefor a simple opinion. We have just as much reason to believe that firemen cause fires as we have to believe that blame is a condition for justification.

That's because you are in the "empirical testing is the only way to truth" camp. You will never be able to understand that observation and reasoning can be spot on, if you won't let go of that epistemological framework temporarily.

Nope. Logic is good too. Unfortunately your fathers conclusions do not follow either logically or empirically, and are therefor unsupported claims.

What if it is not him that had the problem, what then? Only detailed empirical testing will answer who is right, but obviously it has to be the right tests, which could give a false/positive result in favor of afferent vision because scientists want the results to support their beliefs. That's the biggest danger of all, and could ruin it for Lessans.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is a very simple empirical test - spot something, and show that you are unable to photograph it. This has NEVER happened, and many times we have photographed events that happened a long, long way off WITHIN A FEW MINUTES. Efferent vision predicts we should be able to see things that we cannot photograph. This is not the case - so efferent vision is disproven.

It will never happen if the light is already here. This does not negate his claim one iota; it actually supports it.

The light from the event needs to travel at boring old C. The supernova that we did not see before was not sending light before, so I am afraid your train derails again before it leaves the station. Thus the previous statement holds - efferent vision is disproven.