A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wouldn't that be easy? But your argument has offered no critical data whatsoever. You think it's airtight, but it's not. It feels like you are holding a cross up, trying to exorcise the bad spirit out of me in the name of Jesus.

Oh? Show me one argument I have made that is unsupported or poorly reasoned? Show me a single opinion I have shared that is comparable to an exorcism?

[Kael]

I love when peacegirl quotes randomly googled articles that actually disagree with what she's claiming, and acts as though it is supporting evidence.

Yes, peacegirl, we do see light, and if you'd bothered to read that wall of text before you copy-pasted, you wouldn't have.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We don't see light LadyShea. We use light to see.

We use light to see with, but we can't see photons-

we cannot see that which we use to see everything else".

ääDavid J May, NPL Web Site ,1997

Interesting, the source of the misunderstanding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? Show me one argument I have made that is unsupported or poorly reasoned? Show me a single opinion I have shared that is comparable to an exorcism?

It's not that you haven't supported your reasoning. You can be logical, and blatantly wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can be logical, and blatantly wrong.

Very true statement. Have you considered this might be true of Lessans and you as well?

Also, how does this follow from

[You've] offered no critical data whatsoever

And how does my participation compare with the superstition and histrionics of an exorcism?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, how much of this book is plagiarized?

I don't think I plagiarized. I gave credit to the authors whose material I copied.

[peacegirl]

It makes little difference - a camera still needs light to reach it, fall on it's little receptors, in order to make an image out of it. Thus they have to wait for the light to reach it.

Just denying it doesn't change anything. We still designed cameras to detect light - however, they show us the same images as our eyes do.

Ah so we have an answer at last: cameras work in real time too, according to you. How is this possible? Cameras are nothing but light-detectors fitted with a lens to focus the light on the small rectangular area where their receptors are located, much like a human eye. How can they possibly work in real time? They do nothing but react to light - light that does NOT travel instantly.

I am not in a funk at all. Nor am I particularly upset as I do not feel you are upsetting anything. I am just fascinated by how the story gets stranger and stranger as you try to make sense of what strikes me as a nonsensical idea. Real-time cameras? How would that work? How come we designed them to work as light-detectors, while in fact we are detecting something that is faster than light?

I have never seen a camera take a picture of an object without the object being present. That would mean I could be a mile away, in a straight line with a camera, and the camera would be able to take a picture of the light that I am reflecting, even though I'm not in the camera's view. It doesn't work that way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Very true statement. Have you considered this might be true of Lessans and you as well?

If empirical evidence shows he's wrong, then yes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, how does this follow from

And how does my participation compare with the superstition and histrionics of an exorcism?

It doesn't, but that's how it feels especially when I'm being criticized for a book that hasn't been read. This whole thread is filled with histrionics, and they're not just coming from me. I didn't mean to actually compare you to someone who is superstitious or who does actual exorcisms (can't you tell when I'm being literal and when I'm using a metaphor?), but I do feel that in the effort to prove me wrong, people are exhibiting fundamentalist traits; the same traits they despise in others.

I thanked you for Swartz's modal fallacy review, and I wanted to break each fallacy down so that I could show that his definition is not one of them. Do you see anyone showing any interest? Nooooo.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have a habit of not answering me directly, so please answer.

Why is it, peacegirl, that you so often tar others with your own failings?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm very educated regarding the knowledge I'm bringing.

And apparently unknowledgable about just about everything else. Since the knowledge you purport to be purveying has implications for conditions in the real world, then it follows that you ought to be knowledgable regarding those conditions. However, your ignorance, with regard to anything other than the claims made in Lessans' book, is truly prodigious.

In any case, your repeated inability to explain or defend Lessans' work would suggest that your knowledge in that domain is also significantly deficient.

[LadyShea]

You refused to put Lessans argument regarding ONLY why human will is not free into a logical format so we could compare it to the modal fallacy or even to valid logical statements.

Also I didn't post that link, davidm did.

I am pretty sure all the participants have read at least chapter one. So why can't you do that simple thing to discuss that single aspect?

I don't recall all that many premises in the chapter that led to the conclusion "Therefore human will is not free", so it shouldn't even take you long.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Very true statement. Have you considered this might be true of Lessans and you as well?

It is not really relevant, since there are several points in the book where his conclusions do not follow from his premises, even if we granted them for the sake of argument. He doesn't even get the logic part right.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thanked you for Swartz's modal fallacy review, and I wanted to break each fallacy down so that I could show that his definition is not one of them. Do you see anyone showing any interest? Nooooo.

Perhaps because you haven't actually done it. Go ahead, give us your analysis and we will see whether or not it generates any interest. I can pretty much guarantee that it will. Likewise, I am pretty certain than no one is going to be particularly interested in your claim that you want to do such an analysis, absent the actual analysis.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Why is it, peacegirl, that you so often tar others with your own failings?

And apparently unknowledgable about just about everything else. Since the knowledge you purport to be purveying has implications for conditions in the real world, then it follows that you ought to be knowledgable regarding those conditions. However, your ignorance, with regard to anything other than the claims made in Lessans' book, is truly prodigious.

In any case, your repeated inability to explain or defend Lessans' work would suggest that your knowledge in that domain is also significantly deficient.

Why are you assuming that what I don't know in one area suggests lack of knowledge in another? That's very unfair. Do you have to know everything to know some things? Why are you accusing him of something he didn't do? Are you that uninterested in knowing whether he has actually committed a modal fallacy before handing out your "guilty as charged" verdict?

[LadyShea]

Did he, or did he not state "Man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction"?

What definition of compelled was he using?

BTW I did offer a brief analysis a few pages back and the word "compelled" is the key indication that he committed a modal fallacy, in my view, based on the accepted definition of that word.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thanked you for Swartz's modal fallacy review, and I wanted to break each fallacy down so that I could show that his definition is not one of them. Do you see anyone showing any interest? Nooooo.

First of all, you dishonest little asshat, I was the one who supplied that link to you, nearly at the beginning of this thread. This is the second time I have pointed this out to you.

Second, you've already stated that you COULD explain why the modal fallacy is wrong with respect to Ditzy Daddy's arguments, but added that you WON'T explain why. NOW, you claim you aren't doing it because no one is showing any interest! Do you ever tire of lying? Or is that you lie so much you can no longer keep track of what you said?

Hey, Perfesser Peacegirl, we're all ears! Edumacate us!



Oh, and did you miss my recent questions to you, or are you deliberately ignoring them, as usual?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't, but that's how it feels especially when I'm being criticized for a book that hasn't been read.

People HAVE read the book, asshat. Stop lying.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't, but that's how it feels especially when I'm being criticized for a book that hasn't been read.

Hey, peacegirl, did you read The Lone Ranger's 35-page-long essay on light and sight?

No, huh?

[Vivisectus]

I wanted to add: I never said we can't detect light, but how in the world can that light be seen as a detectable pattern when a camera cannot detect this pattern without the object or image in view?

The object makes no real difference. If an object is 1 lightyear away, we detect light that is 1 year old. Light travels at a finite speed.

Do you seriously not get this?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wanted to add: I never said we can't detect light, but how in the world can that light be seen as a detectable pattern when a camera cannot detect this pattern without the object or image in view?

There's another possibility. Cameras and the eyes take a picture of the same thing because efferent sight is true.

Not possible - cameras would not detect light in that case. Light travels at a finite speed, and imaging based simple detecting of light is the very definition of afferent vision. You are grasping at straws here.

Edit: Forgot to say that the object really doesn't matter. An object that is 1 lightyear away, begins to reflect light, stay like that for 1 year and then disappears will become detectable on earth 1 year after it began to reflect light, since it takes that long for the light to reach us. It will then stay visible for 1 year (even though at this time it has already disappeared!) and then disappear even though it has not been there for that whole last year.

Since cameras do nothing else than detect light, this would mean that in this hypothetical situation, someone with efferent eyes would see all this in real time, but cameras would lag 1 year behind.

We have observed many times that this does not in fact happen.

[Vivisectus]

I have never seen a camera take a picture of an object without the object being present. That would mean I could be a mile away, in a straight line with a camera, and the camera would be able to take a picture of the light that I am reflecting, even though I'm not in the camera's view. It doesn't work that way.

Yes you have - all the time. When we look at the night sky, we regularly see images of objects that have disappeared. We take pictures of them as well. You could be a mile away, in a straight line, and what the camera records is what you were doing what is probably a fraction of a millisecond ago, due to the speed of light.

Closer in the difference is much less noticable, but nevertheless detectable - if we shine a light at a detector, there is a very small delay before it reaches this detector and triggers it. We use that delay to measure the speed of light.

Is this really news to you? Because we have tested this thousands of time, and it is common knowledge. How come your father didn't know if he studied so much?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

I love when peacegirl quotes randomly googled articles that actually disagree with what she's claiming, and acts as though it is supporting evidence.

Yes, peacegirl, we do see light, and if you'd bothered to read that wall of text before you copy-pasted, you wouldn't have.

In the entire spectrum of light a very small range represents visible light. Visible light is made up of a range of wavelengths from violet (purple) at 380 nanometers to red at 620-760 nanometers. Imagine 3 feet divided into 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) different segments and this is the size of one nanometer! We can not actually see visible light, but we can see light when it is reflected off any object, like a blade of grass. For example, if you are in a dark room and you turn on a flashlight you can see a beam of light. The reason you can see that light is because the waves of light energy are being reflected by dust particles in the air! That means that you see the light that is reflected by an object, the dust reflects the entire spectrum of light, making it appear white.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The object makes no real difference. If an object is 1 lightyear away, we detect light that is 1 year old. Light travels at a finite speed.

Do you seriously not get this?

You can detect light that has traveled for one lightyear, but, according to efferent vision, you can't see an image of the object from the light itself.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can detect light that has traveled for one lightyear, but, according to efferent vision, you can't see an image of the object from the light itself.

What do you see it from, then?



And how does seeing it instantensouly not violate Special Relativity, which specifically rules out instantaneous seeing no matter how seeing takes place?



What about all the other unanswered questions, derp?

[peacegirl]

I have never seen a camera take a picture of an object without the object being present. That would mean I could be a mile away, in a straight line with a camera, and the camera would be able to take a picture of the light that I am reflecting, even though I'm not in the camera's view. It doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes you have - all the time. When we look at the night sky, we regularly see images of objects that have disappeared. We take pictures of them as well. You could be a mile away, in a straight line, and what the camera records is what you were doing what is probably a fraction of a millisecond ago, due to the speed of light.

Closer in the difference is much less noticable, but nevertheless detectable - if we shine a light at a detector, there is a very small delay before it reaches this detector and triggers it. We use that delay to measure the speed of light.

But if you're only a mile away, why can't the camera take a picture of the lightwaves that are bouncing off of you and get an image of you? If nothing is in the way of you and the camera, and light travels in a straight line, it should be easy to take a picture of the light that is being reflected off of you. But we don't get a picture of you; we get nothing, unless you are in the camera's field of view.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Is this really news to you? Because we have tested this thousands of time, and it is common knowledge. How come your father didn't know if he studied so much?

As I have repeated over and over, he wasn't disputing the properties of light and our ability to detect it. The only thing he was disputing is the belief that we interpret images coming from the light itself.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the entire spectrum of light a very small range represents visible light. Visible light is made up of a range of wavelengths from violet (purple) at 380 nanometers to red at 620-760 nanometers. Imagine 3 feet divided into 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) different segments and this is the size of one nanometer! We can not actually see visible light, but we can see light when it is reflected off any object, like a blade of grass. For example, if you are in a dark room and you turn on a flashlight you can see a beam of light. The reason you can see that light is because the waves of light energy are being reflected by dust particles in the air! That means that you see the light that is reflected by an object, the dust reflects the entire spectrum of light, making it appear white.

DID YOU REALLY THINK THE BOLDED PART SUPPORTS YOUR CASE?

Goddamn, but are you dumb!