A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 254

LadyShea · #**6326** 01-24-2012, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're weaseling again. The question I have asked for weeks now involves Lessans claims and your subsequent claims regarding the Sun being newly turned on at noon and photographing the sun. Not seeing the sun

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I AM NOT WEASELING. How many times have I said that the brain, looking through the eyes, uses the same light, as the light that is at the film instantly. Both work the same way.

Any answer that talks about eyes or vision is a weasel.

Quote:

1. Lessans claims if the Sun was turned on at noon, we would be able to see the Sun with our efferent vision at noon. We would have to await the photons to arrive on Earth 8.5 minutes later to see each other though. So 12:08

Right.

2. You claimed that we would be able to PHOTOGRAPH the Sun at noon, the same time we could see it, meaning we would not have to await the arrival of the photons at 12:08 to photograph the Sun

Right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

3. We know, for a fact, and you just now agreed, that in order to take a photograph, photons and camera film must be in the same location

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the light is intersecting with the film. Obviously, light is not intersecting with the film where there is darkness.

"Intersecting" where? The film is on Earth at noon. The photons are at the Sun at noon. We cannot yet see the person standing next to us because The Earth is dark and will be for another 8.5 minutes. There are no light photons in the same physical location as the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun was turned on, a picture could only be taken of the Sun and nothing else. Until the Sun's photons arrive on earth, we could not see each other, nor could we take a picture of each other no matter close to each other we were.

The film is on Earth at noon. The photons are at the Sun at noon. We cannot yet see the person standing next to us because The Earth is dark and will be for another 8.5 minutes. There are no light photons in the same physical location as the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, all that is necessary in the efferent model is for there to be light around the object, not around the observer.

Film photography requires actual photons of light to be physically absorbed by the camera film which requires they be in the exact same physical location of space

---------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, how can the photons and camera film be in the same location at noon, if the photons have not yet arrived on Earth from the newly ignited Sun and the camera film has not traveled to the Sun

No answer to this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Additionally Where does this "mirror image" physically exist in space and how do the photons get to the physical location of this mirror image?

No answer to this?

naturalist.atheist · #**6327** 01-24-2012, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

To think this was all a waste of time makes me cringe.

Do you have a better idea of the objections people have and the arguments/evidence used to support their objections? You said you had never thought about light in relation to efferent vision, now you have. That might be helpful to you as you move on to some other venue or group of people...therefore not a waste of time, an experience that you learned something from.

That's true LadyShea, I have learned a lot as far as how to explain this model in terms of light, and I have this group to thank since it only confirms what I knew all along. Lessans was right!!

preacegirl doesn't have a clue how crazy statements like this make her look.

peacegirl · #**6328** 01-24-2012, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I suggest folks still engaging with peacegirl check out the Baut thread here, in which very wise advice resides in the latest three posts (as of my posting now) in that thread. The basic advice to all of us is: walk away.

As for this side discussion with ThreeLawsSafe, I have no interest in it, nor will I be reading further posts from him. I only want to make the general point that "mental illness" is ill-defined. It is funny how he should correctly admonish us not to diagnose people as mentally ill over the Internet, and then proceed to label five historical figures as "mentally ill" whom he never met on the Internet or in person; and it's funny that he should be insinuating that N.A. is mentally ill, and thereby doing the very thing he warns everyone else not to do. I call that hypocrisy.

There is no doubt that people have mental dysfunctinos that can impair their lives. Depression is one such example. But depression and other disorders and rather carefully defined and somewhat understood; "mentally ill" is a catch-all category that can -- and most assuredly has -- been used to demonize and marginalize out groups.

I plead mea culpa on characterizing peacegirl as mentally ill; but I would say that I was doing so more in the colloquial, folk sense of the term as one might bandy about "your nuts!" Really, her claims certainly ARE nuts, and no longer worth dealing with. She has been shown hundreds of times why Lessans is wrong; she is currently ignoring, for instance, not just how we send spacecraft to distant worlds, but the neutrino spillover of supernova which PROVES that we are seeing, at our eyes, a distant object that no longer exists (i.e., is "out of range," on her own bizarre terminology.)

What I would say is abundanty and unequivocally true about peacegirl is that she is wholly irrational (where "irrational" says nothing about illness). Even when presented with proof positive that Lessans was wrong (and this has been done more times than one can count) she still rejects the proof and clings to her fantasy world. That is practically the very definition of irrational thinking.

Added to original post:

I just went to the Baut forum and the thread made me chuckle. I have to hand it to you; you represented me well but you failed to mention anything about efferent vision, so they would have no clue why this claim was made in the first place. And why in the world would you bring up the fact that my father, in his frustration, wrote to the President? You still want to make him look bad. Why are you still doing this? :chin:

Vivisectus · #**6329** 01-24-2012, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's in keeping with afferent vision too. For some reason you keep bringing it up like this is an unexplained aspect in optics, or like it somehow isn't compatible with the standard model of vision. So, now what?

This has not been cleared up by any means. No one has answered the question as to why light alone never brings an image to our eyes when the object itself is not in range. This is exactly what Lessans claimed: That an object must be large enough or bright enough to be seen.

peacegirl, they haven't answered the question because it is a crazy question. Everyone knows, not thinks, they know that images form from light alone. And they have told you this hundreds of times, but because you are crazy you are completely unable to process this. Your delusions won't let you.

Actually that WAS answered. The answer is: that happens all the time, but you do not notice it much, since even the moon is only about a light-second and a half away.

We watch supernovas that are long gone. And we KNOW they are long gone, because we do not just detect the light of a supernova event: we detect neutrinos as well, roughly in the same timeframe, despite the fact that the supernova is many thousands of lightyears away.

This has been well-covered, but Peacegirl just conveniently forgets it at random intervals.

Detecting (N) light (or neutrinos) from a supernova event, and seeing images of a past event such that we would see Columbus discovering America if we were on a star and a telescope happened to detect this light, are two different animals.

How? Do the neutrinos magically travel too? The event of us seeing the supernova and the detection of the neutrinos happen close to each other, while the supernova is at LEAST several lightyears away. We know that, because we have not in fact burnt to a crisp.

What SHOULD happen is that we see the supernova in 1980, and then receive the neutrinos in 2010, for a supernova that happened 30 light-years away... which is too close for comfort.

what happens is that we see huge supernovas, and receive the neutrinos in the same year!

If efferent vision were correct, this should mean that the supernova was only 1 lightyear away.

Do you realize that for efferent vision to be true, we would need to go back to an earth-centric universe?

naturalist.atheist · #**6330** 01-24-2012, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I suggest folks still engaging with peacegirl check out the Baut thread here, in which very wise advice resides in the latest three posts (as of my posting now) in that thread. The basic advice to all of us is: walk away.

As for this side discussion with ThreeLawsSafe, I have no interest in it, nor will I be reading further posts from him. I only want to make the general point that "mental illness" is ill-defined. It is funny how he should correctly admonish us not to diagnose people as mentally ill over the Internet, and then proceed to label five historical figures as "mentally ill" whom he never met on the Internet or in person; and it's funny that he should be insinuating that N.A. is mentally ill, and thereby doing the very thing he warns everyone else not to do. I call that hypocrisy.

There is no doubt that people have mental dysfunctinos that can impair their lives. Depression is one such example. But depression and other disorders and rather carefully defined and somewhat understood; "mentally ill" is a catch-all category that can -- and most assuredly has -- been used to demonize and marginalize out groups.

I plead mea culpa on characterizing peacegirl as mentally ill; but I would say that I was doing so more in the colloquial, folk sense of the term as one might bandy about "your nuts!" Really, her claims certainly ARE nuts, and no longer worth dealing with. She has been shown hundreds of times why Lessans is wrong; she is currently ignoring, for instance, not just how we send spacecraft to distant worlds, but the neutrino spillover of supernova which PROVES that we are seeing, at our eyes, a distant object that no longer exists (i.e., is "out of range," on her own bizarre terminology.)

What I would say is abundanty and unequivocally true about peacegirl is that she is wholly irrational (where "irrational" says nothing about illness). Even when presented with proof positive that Lessans was wrong (and this has been done more times than one can count) she still rejects the proof and clings to her fantasy world. That is practically the very definition of irrational thinking.

Added to original post:

I just went to the Baut forum and the thread made me chuckle. I have to hand it to you; you represented me well but you failed to mention anything about efferent vision, so they would have no clue why this claim was made in the first place. And why in the world would you bring up the fact that my father, in his frustration, wrote to the President? You still want to make him look bad. Why are you still doing this? :chin:

In general, people who do crazy things look bad.

peacegirl · #**6331** 01-24-2012, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're weaseling again. The question I have asked for weeks now involves Lessans claims and your subsequent claims regarding the Sun being newly turned on at noon and photographing the sun. Not seeing the sun

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I AM NOT WEASELING. How many times have I said that the brain, looking through the eyes, uses the same light, as the light that is at the film instantly. Both work the same way.

Any answer that talks about eyes or vision is a weasel.

Quote:

1. Lessans claims if the Sun was turned on at noon, we would be able to see the Sun with our efferent vision at noon. We would have to await the photons to arrive on Earth 8.5 minutes later to see each other though. So 12:08

Right.

2. You claimed that we would be able to PHOTOGRAPH the Sun at noon, the same time we could see it, meaning we would not have to await the arrival of the photons at 12:08 to photograph the Sun

Right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

3. We know, for a fact, and you just now agreed, that in order to take a photograph, photons and camera film must be in the same location

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the light is intersecting with the film. Obviously, light is not intersecting with the film where there is darkness.

"Intersecting" where? The film is on Earth at noon. The photons are at the Sun at noon. We cannot yet see the person standing next to us because The Earth is dark and will be for another 8.5 minutes. There are no light photons in the same physical location as the film.

Yes there is. As long as the lens is focused on the Sun, the light that produces the mirror image on the film is intersecting with the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun was turned on, a picture could only be taken of the Sun and nothing else. Until the Sun's photons arrive on earth, we could not see each other, nor could we take a picture of each other no matter close to each other we were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The film is on Earth at noon. The photons are at the Sun at noon. We cannot yet see the person standing next to us because The Earth is dark and will be for another 8.5 minutes. There are no light photons in the same physical location as the film.

Yes there is LadyShea, but you can't see it because you are thinking in terms of the finite speed of light along with the afferent model. It won't work. It's like trying to fit a square in a circle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, all that is necessary in the efferent model is for there to be light around the object, not around the observer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Film photography requires actual photons of light to be physically absorbed by the camera film which requires they be in the exact same physical location of space

And that's what is happening. There is a physical interaction as long as the lens is focused on the object since the mirror image will be at the film instantly. If you keep thinking in terms of afferent vision (which involves the finite speed of light), you will never get this concept.

---------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, how can the photons and camera film be in the same location at noon, if the photons have not yet arrived on Earth from the newly ignited Sun and the camera film has not traveled to the Sun

No answer to this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Additionally Where does this "mirror image" physically exist in space and how do the photons get to the physical location of this mirror image?

No answer to this?

I answered both of these. The mirror image is at the film or retina. It is the back of the imaginary coin. There's no "in between" or traversing any distance. It's there at the film the instant a snapshot is taken.

Spacemonkey · #**6332** 01-24-2012, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered both of these. The mirror image is at the film or retina. It is the back of the imaginary coin. There's no "in between" or traversing any distance. It's there at the film the instant a snapshot is taken.

So how does that not involve the photons comprising that mirror image either magically appearing at the film or teleporting there?

ThreeLawsSafe · #**6333** 01-24-2012, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

ThreeLawsSafe, without offering any diagnosis, could you explain why it would be unreasonable to think that the following might be applicable here, given the evidence presented within these threads?:

Delusional disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikpedia

The following can indicate a delusion:

1. The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2. That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3. Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4. The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5. There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6. An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7. The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
8. The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
9. The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10. Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

If an online poster were to regularly display such indicators over a period of several years whilst giving every indication of being genuine and not a troll or poe, would it not be reasonable to think that this person might benefit from psychiatric treatment of some sort?

ETA:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

When delusional disorders occur late in life they suggest a hereditary predisposition. Researchers also suggest that these disorders are the result of early childhood experiences with an authoritarian family structure. According to other researchers, any person with a sensitive personality is particularly vulnerable to developing a delusional disorder.

Spacemonkey -

While that's a good question, my answer is that we can't diagnose a person solely on the basis of internet posts. Of course, davidm would cry out, "then why can you diagnose Vincent Van Gogh based upon his writings?" and my answer would be 1) that we diagnose him very tentatively, 2) part of that diagnosis is a product of psychological assessments done by professionals who knew him, and 3) we are able to look at the facts of his life in addition to his writings.

On the internet, we really don't know what motivates a person to post. People mis-represent themselves wildly, and sometimes over many years. We've seen instances of sexual predators who keep up a fake online persona for multiple years in order to pursue victims, for example.

I don't know what peacegirl's real persona is like in the real world. For all I know, peacegirl could be 5 different people posting on the same account.

So it would be impossible to make a professional diagnosis. And, contra to what davidM says, I have not ever done so on this forum or any other. I could even lose my license if I did so. I can only diagnose insofar as I am working in my capacity as a therapist. I also work as a teacher, and I've been asked about students' psychological difficulties by parents, and I am unable to give an assessment because I am not working for them in my capacity as a therapist.

I'm sorry if that answer seems evasive, but it's the honest truth.

LadyShea · #**6334** 01-24-2012, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the light is intersecting with the film. Obviously, light is not intersecting with the film where there is darkness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Intersecting" where? The film is on Earth at noon. The photons are at the Sun at noon. We cannot yet see the person standing next to us because The Earth is dark and will be for another 8.5 minutes. There are no light photons in the same physical location as the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes there is. As long as the lens is focused on the Sun, the light that produces the mirror image on the film is intersecting with the film.

Define intersecting, and explain how focusing lenses can bring 2 physical objects separated by 93 million miles to the same physical place in space without anything traveling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The film is on Earth at noon. The photons are at the Sun at noon. We cannot yet see the person standing next to us because The Earth is dark and will be for another 8.5 minutes. There are no light photons in the same physical location as the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes there is LadyShea, .

There are physical photons on Earth at the camera film 93 million miles away from the Sun where the photons also are, but they did not travel to get there, nor come into duplicate physical existence ? How on Earth is that possible?

How can you shake my hand from 93 million miles away?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Film photography requires actual photons of light to be physically absorbed by the camera film which requires they be in the exact same physical location of space

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And that's what is happening. There is a physical interaction as long as the lens is focused on the object since the mirror image will be at the film instantly.

Focusing lenses cannot fold space or create a wormhole allowing a photon to physically touch the atoms in camera film 93 million miles away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Additionally Where does this "mirror image" physically exist in space and how do the photons get to the physical location of this mirror image?

I answered both of these. The mirror image is at the film or retina. It is the back of the imaginary coin. There's no "in between" or traversing any distance. It's there at the film the instant a snapshot is taken.

Then the mirror image you are positing is a second full physical universe with duplicated atoms of matter that can be physically interacted with.

Is that REALLY what you think is happening in our retina and on camera film? A whole other dimension of space comes into existence in our eyeball or a camera by the act of looking?

There is a physical distance between the sun and the camera film. Any negating of that distance must also be a physical process because the same location is a physical place.

thedoc · #**6335** 01-25-2012, 12:05 AM

LadyShea, my guess is that peacegirl has no idea what is happening, and is just throwing words out, hoping that some of them will come together in the right order so that everyone will stop posting about it. She just wants to get on to other aspects that require that we assume Lessans is correct, so that she can prove from these assumptions that Lessans was correct. If you remember she once stated that the photons at an object (The Sun) will expand to interact with the film or retina but did not explain how it happens, and it does so instantly, but there is no movement and the Photon does not really go any distance to do so.

naturalist.atheist · #**6336** 01-25-2012, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said mentally ill people, or mentally impaired people, have nothing to offer?

They are either geniuses or curiosities. Which is it for peacegirl?

davidm · #**6337** 01-25-2012, 12:42 AM

Folks, my advice, fwiw, is to follow the wise recommendations of several people at the BAUT forum thread I started, and give it up. Let peacegirl lie in peace. And by "lie" I intend an interesting equivocation.

Just consider, LadyShea and Spacemonkey, you are essentially going over for the nth time the exact same ground you went over hundreds of pages ago. Why?

LadyShea · #**6338** 01-25-2012, 01:21 AM

because I think what we are seeing is akin to a a literalist hitting that point of hardcore apologetics where they can't answer questions anymore without resorting to Godidit (or in this case Lessans said it). You've seen it, they go researching to find just one more weasel word, or one more ambiguity they can play on, and find they've run out. Then they see what's left, and sometimes go "oh."

This second physical dimension in our eyes has definite "oh." possibilities.

Of course a spectacular drama exit flail is also a possibility.

naturalist.atheist · #**6339** 01-25-2012, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course a spectacular drama exit flail is also a possibility.

So you don't how this next iteration is going to turn out?

LadyShea · #**6340** 01-25-2012, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said mentally ill people, or mentally impaired people, have nothing to offer?

They are either geniuses or curiosities. Which is peacegirl?

That's not true. Just because someone has a mental illness doesn't mean they have nothing of value to offer anyone.

LadyShea · #**6341** 01-25-2012, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course a spectacular drama exit flail is also a possibility.

So you don't how this next iteration is going to turn out?

Not yet. With so few stubborn diehards left, her reset attempts are getting more difficult because we aren't quite as easily distracted now as we were then

naturalist.atheist · #**6342** 01-25-2012, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said mentally ill people, or mentally impaired people, have nothing to offer?

They are either geniuses or curiosities. Which is peacegirl?

That's not true. Just because someone has a mental illness doesn't mean they have nothing of value to offer anyone.

Agreed. It is to be seen what anyone has to offer. Have you not seen enough?

LadyShea · #**6343** 01-25-2012, 01:46 AM

Just 10 minutes ago there were 15 people reading this thread. Right now there are 5. You're still reading it N.A. as is davidm. WHY?

naturalist.atheist · #**6344** 01-25-2012, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course a spectacular drama exit flail is also a possibility.

So you don't how this next iteration is going to turn out?

Not yet. With so few stubborn diehards left, her reset attempts are getting more difficult because we aren't quite as easily distracted now as we were then

I fail to see how the situation has changed. We are still not dealing with a rational person.

LadyShea · #**6345** 01-25-2012, 01:47 AM

naturalist.atheist · #**6346** 01-25-2012, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just 10 minutes ago there were 15 people reading this thread. Right now there are 5. You're still reading it N.A. as is davidm. WHY?

Because I think what is going on here is equivalent to taunting the village idiot. And I'd like to see it stop.

LadyShea · #**6347** 01-25-2012, 01:51 AM

When did you start giving a shit about fundies? Seriously N.A. I don't remember you sticking up for other types of True Believers.

LadyShea · #**6348** 01-25-2012, 01:55 AM

Anyway, my responses are largely serious questions and points. I am engaging her as I would any apologist, as a skeptic putting claims to the test.

How am I taunting her?

thedoc · #**6349** 01-25-2012, 02:00 AM

I always liked the story 'Flowers for Algernon', the book was good, the 1968 movie OK, the 2000 movie was not as good to me.

'They also serve, who stand and wait'.

There are many ways to be of value. And NO, I am not suggesting that mentally ill persons should be test subjects, but that might be considered one end of the scale, the other end might be a VanGogh.

'You are not a total loss, we can always use you as a bad example', I seem to remember hearing that one a few times.

thedoc · #**6350** 01-25-2012, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just 10 minutes ago there were 15 people reading this thread. Right now there are 5. You're still reading it N.A. as is davidm. WHY?

The time of day might have something to do with it, some people do have a live apart from the internet. I can get on almost anytime between other obligations, I can also do it while the grandchildren are in the room playing or watching a video. The only problem is the grandaughter likes to sit on my lap, or wants me to do something with her, its not really a problem it just takes me away from the computer.