A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't call this playing. I call this torture.

So why do you do it? Why do you keep parading your own mental illness and the incompetence of your father for all to see? How does this work out to be in your direction of greatest satisfaction if it is such "torture" for you?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Constantly resorting to light traveling so fast in Space

Why do you think light travels any faster in space, peacegirl? Why do you repeat this lie even after we've explained it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

my question as to why matter has to be interacting with light for it to be seen.

Yes, that's a mystery isn't it? Why does matter has to be interacting with light for it to be seen? It's almost as if the reflected light from matter is what seeing is!

You really are asking this? You really can't understand why matter has to be interacting with light for it to be seen?

You are the one who can't explain this. We all understand perfectly well why, because we aren't using a crazy model of vision. You have no idea why seeing requires light, except Lessans' say-so. You have no idea why lenses magnify (or shrink) images, except Lessans' say-so. The rest of us, we have explanations and can calculate and do useful things. You are left getting things wrong and make ridiculous statements. And then you wonder why nobody believes a thing you say. And then you lie about it. TLR's opinion of you is quite justified, I think.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're all so confused I don't know if there's any hope. It makes this whole effort meaningless.

There you go irrationally blaming your audience again. If you think we are confused, then why do you refuse to answer questions?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the non-absorbed wavelengths were (P) reflected which means that as long as the object is present, the resulting wavelengths will extend as far as the dispersed light will go until the light fades out and the object is no longer visible.

What dispersed light? Dispersion is a property of traveling light. Are you saying there will not be any instantaneous image showing up anywhere where travelling light has yet to reach? Or if there rather will be an instantaneous image even where travelling light has not reached, then what does the dispersion of such travelling light have to do with it? What is being dispersed? And what do you mean by "dispersed"? Do you even know, or are we now dealing with a new and undefined (P)dispersion now as well?

[Dragar]

I like how peacegirl puts (P) in front of certain words now. Just to highlight helpfully for us how she refuses to define any of her terms.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You could never get an image of your family when taking a picture through the detection of light only. They would have to be within the focal plane, which means they would have to be present.

Yes, to get a picture of my family I would need my family to stand there and reflect light, so that reflected light could strike the sensor or film in a pattern representing my family.

Where did anyone say anything different?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, do you understand that you cannot see light, on Earth, that has not interacted with matter (except in like a lab in a created vacuum)? It's not possible. We don't think it's possible nor have we ever stated it is possible.

We can't see the spaces between objects because you will still be getting light reflected off matter in the background, foreground, or peripheral.

When you open your eyes and look out you are seeing light that has interacted with matter, all the time, everywhere. It has been reflected, absorbed, diffused, refracted, and/or filtered. Nobody has ever said it "brings matter to our eyes". Anyway, our eyes are also matter that light interacts with.

Also note, in the vacuum of space where the Hubble is, light can and does often travel without being intercepted by matter. We can intercept that light, with matter in the form of the HUBBLE and get images from it.

More to the point, LS, we don't see light. We see objects, because seeing is light interacting with matter. Even a rainbow, a peacegirl confusedly points out, isn't seeing light. It's seeing the sun after its image has had all sorts of fun done to it via the atmosphere (or we're seeing the atmosphere, by virtue of sunlight, if you prefer).

Asking why we don't see light is as misguided as asking why we don't hear pressure waves, only sound-making things.

Or asking what the taste of sweetness is, when you take it out of the sugar.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm not backing off. I told you that this doesn't change the concept I'm trying to get across which is the material entity, no matter how tiny, comes into the focal plane due to extreme magnification.

That's fine, but will you admit you were wrong about lenses? You claimed that lenses were necessary, and they aren't. So will you admit you were wrong about that, so we can move on and discuss the other stuff?

[Spacemonkey]

I see that in the other thread you've reverted to claiming you have a working model of efferent vision. So please use that model to answer the following two sets of questions. Show me that your 'model' works well enough to do this without contradicting itself. If you can't do this then you don't have a working model.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why does efferent vision still have no answers to the following simple questions?



When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]



1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

[peacegirl]

I am asking everyone to transfer their unanswered questions to the other thread. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am asking everyone to transfer their unanswered questions to the other thread.

Why? What was wrong with posting only in this newer thread?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why? What was wrong with posting only in this newer thread?

I'd like to stick with one or the other, not both. This thread was meant to discuss his first discovery anyway.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to stick with one or the other, not both. This thread was meant to discuss his first discovery anyway.

Then discuss his first idea here, you stated that you didn't want to dicuss vision here but here we are.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to stick with one or the other, not both. This thread was meant to discuss his first discovery anyway.

I guess that makes sense. It must be awfully difficult for you to try to ignore questions on two different topics in the same thread. Now you can ignore my questions about efferent vision in the other thread while using this one only for ignoring my questions about Lessans' first non-discovery.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You were denying that he made any presuppositions about conscience. Yet I've showed you exactly what his presuppositions were. To refute this you need to show that they were not presuppositions because either (i) his arguments do not require them to be true; or (ii) he did actually offer arguments or evidence in support of them.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

A presupposition is an assumption. He made no assumptions. You can use the term to mean that in order for his premises to be true they must meet the following requirements:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

Yes, where in the book are these presuppositions supported by evidence and not just assertions? Chapter and page please.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then discuss his first idea here, you stated that you didn't want to dicuss vision here but here we are.

I politely asked people to discuss his first discovery in this thread, but that didn't happen. Maybe with two threads it will work out. So let's keep this thread for his first discovery, and the other thread for his second, which was my intention all along when I started this second thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, where in the book are these presuppositions supported by evidence and not just assertions? Chapter and page please.

That is what Chapter Two is all about. I refuse to condense it and confuse everyone. This discovery is too important to discuss it nilly-willy. This is about content and the best way it can be explained is the way I'm going to explain it. I'm not going to blow my chance to get people to understand this knowledge just because you demand quick answers.

[LadyShea]

A presupposition isn't just an assumption. It's a premise assumed to be true in any statement. There's a difference.

If I tell you I am going to the library tomorrow, I am presupposing that
1. I will be alive tomorrow
2. The world will exist tomorrow
3. The library is still there and open
4. That my car will start

We all make presuppositions all the time. Lessans made some to frame his ideas persuasively. He had to have.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A presupposition isn't just an assumption. It's a premise assumed to be true in any statement. There's a difference.

If I tell you I am going to the library tomorrow, I am presupposing that
1. I will be alive tomorrow
2. The world will exist tomorrow
3. The library is still there and open
4. That my car will start

We all make presuppositions all the time. Lessans made some to frame his ideas persuasively. He had to have.

I don't agree. He made observations, not presuppositions in the true sense of the word, which implies the cart came before the horse. That is so wrong.

[LadyShea]

You're hopeless

[davidm]

Wow, two whole threads now, some 900 pages, catering to this woman's utter nonsense. It's like someone came in here, barking mad, talking about the Martians controlling her brain through CIA radio waves beamed from Pluto, and these claims were accommodated for 900 pages across two threads!

Give it up, folks. I know it's rubbernecking at a train wreck and the Internet's biggest freak show and all that, but still! Enough is enough.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wow, two whole threads now, some 900 pages, catering to this woman's utter nonsense. It's like someone came in here, barking mad, talking about the Martians controlling her brain through CIA radio waves beamed from Pluto, and these claims were accommodated for 900 pages across two threads!

Give it up, folks. I know it's rubbernecking at a train wreck and the Internet's biggest freak show and all that, but still! Enough is enough.

Davidm, you are free to read this thread, or not, as you choose. You are free to post on this thread, or not, as you choose. Others are also free to read or post here, or not as they choose. I do not understand what your problem is, no-one os compelling you to participate in this thread? Keep it or leave it alone, it's your choice 'of your own free will?'

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't agree. He made observations, not presuppositions in the true sense of the word, which implies the cart came before the horse. That is so wrong.

Peacegirl, are you now claiming that Lessans 'Observed' people in a 'non-free-will society'? Are you claiming that Lessans 'Observed' people in a society without blame and punishment? If he did not directly Observe people in these situations, then they are opinions of what he presumed it would be like in these situations. For these Observations to be taken as absolute truth they must have been of real people acting in the real environment under these conditions. If this is so, give us the real case historys of these Observations. Untill then it is only in his imagination that he made these Observations and not in reality, and that puts them firmly in the realm of opinion.