A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So just to be clear, when the light is turned on, on the earth, the astronauts, on the moon, would see it imediately, and the camera, on the moon, would not be able to take a photograph till the light arrived, 1.3 seconds later. Is this exactly what you agreed to? If efferent vision is correct?

I would think so. That shouldn't be a difficult experiment.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am a #1. Repeatable proof is validation. I continue to say the the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Do you even know what that means?

You are a #3, with a little paraphrasing: For those who choose not to "study the analysis", no proof is enough.

It certainly helps to know who you are dealing with, and their apparent view of reality. I don't need to say any more, the proof is in this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am a #1. Repeatable proof is validation. I continue to say the the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Do you even know what that means?

You are a #3, with a little paraphrasing: For those who choose not to "study the analysis", no proof is enough.

Originally Posted by thedoc

It certainly helps to know who you are dealing with, and their apparent view of reality. I don't need to say any more, the proof is in this thread.

Doc, you're ignorant. I needn't say more. The proof of your ignorance is right here in this thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would think so. That shouldn't be a difficult experiment.

You are correct this would be very easy to demonstrate, and I would think that this has already been demonstrated many times by actual experience of observers and photographs being taken at the same time.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, you're ignorant. I needn't say more. The proof of doc's ignorance are right here in this thread.

Attack and counter attack, not a very good way to arrive at the truth.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

??

Are we there yet????

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Attack and counter attack, not a very good way to arrive at the truth.

Attacking before all the facts are in, not a very good way to arrive at the truth; in fact, a very inaccurate way.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's what you think this is all about naturalist_atheist, I can't agree more. So now you can leave this thread with confidence since I just agreed with you that I'm the one that's been pissed on. The joke is on me.

So do you think this joke is going to reach 10,000 posts?

[Vivisectus]

I didn't say you have to build me a machine, but I do want to feel confident that what is being measured is actually being measured. It's very easy at this name of the game to find ways to discredit Lessans because he is the underdog. Reliability is at a premium, as well as the importance of getting it right without inadvertantly skewing the data.

That is why I included the extra evidence from the machine-only test that yielded the same result for the speed of light. The experiment with the wheel matched the machine-only test.

It should have been significantly different - but it wasn't. If sight was efferent, the light would have to travel a shorter distance, and the test that relied on sight should have yielded a different result. It did not - thus proving that sight is afferent.

No, the speed of light would not be slower if sight was efferent. Only the distance of the actual lightsource would be different because we would be seeing the real thing, not a delayed image of the real thing.

Don't be dense. The result of the test should have been different from when they did more precise measurements with light detectors only. The light would not have to travel the same distance, so the first experiment should have been off because they assumed sight to be afferent. But in fact it gave them a result that was remarkably exact for such a low-tech solution - thus confirming quite clearly that sight is afferent

Once again, simple empirical evidence that sight is not efferent. You can wriggle and lie and move the goalposts, but the truth remains the same.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are correct this would be very easy to demonstrate, and I would think that this has already been demonstrated many times by actual experience of observers and photographs being taken at the same time.

How would it be demonstrated many times? To capture a picture where the light isn't striking the camera, yet an individual is still able to see the object or image, is not an easy task because light travels so fast.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Attacking before all the facts are in, not a very good way to arrive at the truth; in fact, a very inaccurate way.

The facts are here, and the truth is here, except for those who are so blinded by their lies that they will not see, and I am refering to you, Peacegirl, since you are the only one on this thread who will not acknowledge the truth, you only admit your fathers fantasy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

So do you think this joke is going to reach 10,000 posts?

I have no clue. When I feel there is nothing is left for me to say, I'll be gone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The facts are here, and the truth is here, except for those who are so blinded by their lies that they will not see, and I am refering to you, Peacegirl, since you are the only one on this thread who will not acknowledge the truth, you only admit your fathers fantasy.

Your comments are getting old. You have nothing new to add to the conversation; no new questions; no curiosity about his first discovery; no apparent interest in this book whatsoever; so why don't you give someone else a chance?

[peacegirl]

I didn't say you have to build me a machine, but I do want to feel confident that what is being measured is actually being measured. It's very easy at this name of the game to find ways to discredit Lessans because he is the underdog. Reliability is at a premium, as well as the importance of getting it right without inadvertantly skewing the data.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is why I included the extra evidence from the machine-only test that yielded the same result for the speed of light. The experiment with the wheel matched the machine-only test.

It should have been significantly different - but it wasn't. If sight was efferent, the light would have to travel a shorter distance, and the test that relied on sight should have yielded a different result. It did not - thus proving that sight is afferent.

Why would the results be significantly different? We're only talking about milli-seconds. If we couldn't see any image at all until the light reached our eyes, then that would support afferent vision.

No, the speed of light would not be slower if sight was efferent. Only the distance of the actual lightsource would be different because we would be seeing the real thing, not a delayed image of the real thing.

So what you're saying is that no image could be seen until the light reached the eye. Why can't you show me a simulation of the actual experiment? I don't think that's asking too much.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Don't be dense. The result of the test should have been different from when they did more precise measurements with light detectors only. The light would not have to travel the same distance, so the first experiment should have been off because they assumed sight to be afferent. But in fact it gave them a result that was remarkably exact for such a low-tech solution - thus confirming quite clearly that sight is afferent.

If it's low-tech, can it be easily replicated?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Once again, simple empirical evidence that sight is not efferent. You can wriggle and lie and move the goalposts, but the truth remains the same.

I'm not moving the goalposts, I just want confirmation of exactly what took place, and what the results were in a simulation of some kind. Are you saying they couldn't see any image at all? By the way, what was the image?

[thedoc]

I think we need to set some ground rules for the next party. We could start with a complete suspenson of belief in any fact or truth based on reality & honest science. We definitely need to require willful ignorance. Consistant lieing and corrupting of the truth would also be a good thing. A complete disrespect of personal qualities except for the genitals, and since personal appearance is to be ignored, personal hygiene and grooming is no longer necessary.

Hmmm, I hope Peacegirl likes solo partys, because she's going to be the only one there.

'Happy Golden Age'

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think we need to set some ground rules for the next party. We could start with a complete suspenson of belief in any fact or truth based on reality & honest science. We definitely need to require willful ignorance. Consistant lieing and corrupting of the truth would also be a good thing. A complete disrespect of personal qualities except for the genitals, and since personal appearance is to be ignored, personal hygiene and grooming is no longer necessary.

Hmmm, I hope Peacegirl likes solo partys, because she's going to be the only one there.

'Happy Golden Age'

I have no idea who you think you are, or what you're trying to prove doc, but you're not succeeding. You're not even making sense now, and I have no desire to respond to you in any meaningful way.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your comments are getting old. You have nothing new to add to the conversation; no new questions; no curiosity about his first discovery; no apparent interest in this book whatsoever; so why don't you give someone else a chance?

Truth hurts doesn't it. And you are right there is nothing new here, you keep repeating the same old lies, everyone else keeps stating the same evidence of how the world really works. But you are wrong in that I was interested in the book and the "discoveries", however the book was so poorly writen and the discoveries so well obscured, it was like, as Lessans stated, they were all hidden behind closed doors and he couldn't open them and tell us. It was left for us to puzzle it out for ourselves, and that is when most realized that there was nothing real behind the doors, just fantasy, and an elaborate fiction of his own self aggrandizement to compensate for his own failures and lack of accomplishment.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea who you think you are, or what you're trying to prove doc, but you're not succeeding. You're not even making sense now, and I have no desire to respond to you in any meaningful way.

L.O.L. You have not responded in a meaningful way in 269 pages, why start now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Truth hurts doesn't it. And you are right there is nothing new here, you keep repeating the same old lies, everyone else keeps stating the same evidence of how the world really works. But you are wrong in that I was interested in the book and the "discoveries", however the book was so poorly writen and the discoveries so well obscured, it was like, as Lessans stated, they were all hidden behind closed doors and he couldn't open them and tell us. It was left for us to puzzle it out for ourselves, and that is when most realized that there was nothing real behind the doors, just fantasy, and an elaborate fiction of his own self aggrandizement to compensate for his own failures and lack of accomplishment.

Then why would you be wasting your time? There's so many other threads to read. Why stay here? I think the attacks on Lessans have gotten to you. So move on. I won't be angry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

L.O.L. You have not responded in a meaningful way in 269 pages, why start now?

Attack and counterattack aren't good for learning the truth; came right out of the horse's mouth.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Attack and counterattack aren't good for learning the truth; came right out of the horse's mouth.

And your's are comeing out of the other end of the horse.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And your's are comeing out of the other end of the horse.

You think I'm going to paticipate in this nonsense. Nope. You can go talk to yourself. Maybe you'll get the answers you want. Wouldn't surprise me.

[Vivisectus]

Why would the results be significantly different? We're only talking about milli-seconds. If we couldn't see any image at all until the light reached our eyes, then that would support afferent vision.

It is milliseconds either way - in this case, about half as many milliseconds. The distance would have been significantly different. As it is, it is quite astonishingly accurate for a test that is so low-tech.

Stop weaseling.

So what you're saying is that no image could be seen until the light reached the eye. Why can't you show me a simulation of the actual experiment? I don't think that's asking too much.

You were shown a quite clear diagram. Stop moving the goalposts.

If it's low-tech, can it be easily replicated?

Quite easily.

I'm not moving the goalposts, I just want confirmation of exactly what took place, and what the results were in a simulation of some kind. Are you saying they couldn't see any image at all? By the way, what was the image?

No image. Just some light. We showed you the wikipedia article, it is not hard to find. Your problem us rather that you are not seeing if it is reasonable, just to see if you can come up with another weasely excuse not to face the truth - that efferent sight is a lot of pure grade a baloney.

There really is no way around this - sight simply is not efferent. This is even more clearly demonstrated by a supernova - we should not be able to photograph it for another 800 years, yet there it is in the sky. We can photograph it and see it at the same time, while before it was invisible. If sight was efferent, we would have to wait for the light from the event to reach us for another 800 years before we could take a picture, as we would not have to wait for the light to travel all that way. There was no measurable amount of light before, there is after - so it took 1 year per lightyear to reach us.

We can measure the distance to the supernova independently from light, and it adds up - we KNOW how far away it is. And yet - surprise! - us seeing it and the light from the event reaching us happens at the same time - 800 years after the event.

You have been shown this a hundred times already, but you always find some excuse to ignore it, because you are just here to push your religious fanaticism despite the fact it has already been comprehensively dismantled. Like your father, you do not have a scientific mindset at all. Science carefully measures things, tests them, and is ALWAYS sure to be very careful before making any kind of statement.

Your father just happily makes wide, sweeping statements which he does not support, does not provide evidence for and that, frankly, just show how vastly ignorant he was. He had not the slightest idea about philosophy, which is demonstrated by his complete lack of method and faulty logic, but decided that he had written the finest book of philosophy ever. He made statements that touched in biology and physics as well, despite a quite overwhelming lack of knowledge about either. The man clearly never understood special relativity, because he seems to have been completely unaware of the fact that his ideas contradicted it. He even mentioned Einstein in his book, despite not having the faintest idea about what the man had actually said. Finally we waded into psychology, not in the least hampered by a complete and total lack of even the most basic knowledge about it.

His humorously bumbling work was utterly ignored, just like the world ignores almost all crackpots. His even more ham-fisted attempt to sue the president was laughed out of court as well. None of this seems to have made the slightest impact in his conviction that he had created a work of genius.

In his defense, it is possible that he was simply too ignorant to see the gaping holes in his fallacy sundae topped, or the very clear and easy observations that completely contradict him. But you - you do not have that excuse. Your ignorance is of your own choosing.

[peacegirl]

Why would the results be significantly different? We're only talking about milli-seconds. If we couldn't see any image at all until the light reached our eyes, then that would support afferent vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is milliseconds either way - in this case, about half as many milliseconds. The distance would have been significantly different. As it is, it is quite astonishingly accurate for a test that is so low-tech.

Stop weaseling.

No, the speed of light would not be slower if sight was efferent. Only the distance of the actual lightsource would be different because we would be seeing the real thing, not a delayed image of the real thing.

So what you're saying is that no image could be seen until the light reached the eye. Why can't you show me a simulation of the actual experiment? I don't think that's asking too much.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You were shown a quite clear diagram. Stop moving the goalposts.

I'm not moving the goalposts.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Don't be dense. The result of the test should have been different from when they did more precise measurements with light detectors only. The light would not have to travel the same distance, so the first experiment should have been off because they assumed sight to be afferent. But in fact it gave them a result that was remarkably exact for such a low-tech solution - thus confirming quite clearly that sight is afferent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it's low-tech, can it be easily replicated?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quite easily.

Then maybe you can find a video of the experiment. I would love to see it.

I'm not moving the goalposts, I just want confirmation of exactly what took place, and what the results were in a simulation of some kind. Are you saying they couldn't see any image at all? By the way, what was the image?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No image. Just some light. We showed you the wikipedia article, it is not hard to find. Your problem us rather that you are not seeing if it is reasonable, just to see if you can come up with another weasely excuse not to face the truth - that efferent sight is a lot of pure grade a baloney.

No image? Just some light? We can see the presence of light when the photons reach us, but we can't see the photons. That is not the same thing as seeing an actual image or object that is reflecting or emitting that light. This whole experiment doesn't seem reliable now.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There really is no way around this - sight simply is not efferent. This is even more clearly demonstrated by a supernova - we should not be able to photograph it for another 800 years, yet there it is in the sky.

We could be seeing remnants of an explosion -- not the actual explosion. But we would be seeing those remnants in real time. I'm not disputing that remnants of a previous explosion can be seen somewhere else. I don't even think we're talking about the same thing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We can photograph it and see it at the same time, while before it was invisible. If sight was efferent, we would have to wait for the light from the event to reach us for another 800 years before we could take a picture, as we would not have to wait for the light to travel all that way. There was no measurable amount of light before, there is after - so it took 1 year per lightyear to reach us.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We can measure the distance to the supernova independently from light, and it adds up - we KNOW how far away it is. And yet - surprise! - us seeing it and the light from the event reaching us happens at the same time - 800 years after the event.

I am not going to try to debate this anymore. You're absolutely convinced that you have absolute proof, so you win.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have been shown this a hundred times already, but you always find some excuse to ignore it, because you are just here to push your religious fanaticism despite the fact it has already been comprehensively dismantled. Like your father, you do not have a scientific mindset at all. Science carefully measures things, tests them, and is ALWAYS sure to be very careful before making any kind of statement.

As I said, you win.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your father just happily makes wide, sweeping statements which he does not support, does not provide evidence for and that, frankly, just show how vastly ignorant he was. He had not the slightest idea about philosophy, which is demonstrated by his complete lack of method and faulty logic, but decided that he had written the finest book of philosophy ever. He made statements that touched in biology and physics as well, despite a quite overwhelming lack of knowledge about either. The man clearly never understood special relativity, because he seems to have been completely unaware of the fact that his ideas contradicted it. He even mentioned Einstein in his book, despite not having the faintest idea about what the man had actually said. Finally we waded into psychology, not in the least hampered by a complete and total lack of even the most basic knowledge about it.

His humorously bumbling work was utterly ignored, just like the world ignores almost all crackpots. His even more ham-fisted attempt to sue the president was laughed out of court as well. None of this seems to have made the slightest impact in his conviction that he had created a work of genius.

In his defense, it is possible that he was simply too ignorant to see the gaping holes in his fallacy sundae topped, or the very clear and easy observations that completely contradict him. But you - you do not have that excuse. Your ignorance is of your own choosing.

For the last time, you win. I'm sure you're happy now.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We cannot become conditioned with hearing, smelling, touching, or tasting (because they are senses) in the same way that we become conditioned with the eyes. For example, if we like a certain food, a person telling us the food tastes terrible doesn't change our opinion. If a person says a food is delicious, but we don't like it, our opinion doesn't change even if someone tells 1000 times that it tastes good.

You obviously haven't spent much time trying to deal with a picky eater. As every parent of a picky eater knows, what the kid thinks the food will taste like very much determines how it tastes to them. Parents know this, and often tell their kids "this tastes like X" in order to get them to eat it.

For example, my childhood friend Mark loved pumpkin pie but he was convinced that he hated sweet potato pie. One day, he was happily eating a piece of pie, and remarked to me that this was the best pumpkin pie he'd ever had. "Actually, that's sweet potato pie," I pointed out. "Yuck!" he replied, and pushed it away in disgust.