A revolution in thought

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You must think I'm really stupid.

Why, oh why, did an opening like this come along right after I declared an insult moratorium! Oh, cruel fate!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why don't you buy some propecia while you're at it.

I most certainly will not! One day Nature's Laws looked down from on high at all the heads and decided to cover the really ugly ones with hair. Who am I to contravene divine judgment?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think anything will help you though.

You are surely correct about that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you really suppose that anyone except you thinks that this incoherent hodgepodge of horse manure actually means anything?

Of course not. How can anyone think it means anything when they haven't read anything up to this point? I posted this excerpt to show you that if you've been hurt, it's normal to want to strike back. I've been hurt plenty of times in here, and I will strike back in retaliation because I feel justified.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Why, oh why, did an opening like this come along right after I declared an insult moratorium! Oh, cruel fate!

I most certainly will not! One day Nature's Laws looked down from on high at all the heads and decided to cover the really ugly ones with hair. Who am I to contravene divine judgment?

I have a confession to make. I love bald men (but be assured, I don't love you. ) My father had male pattern baldness, and I use to rub his head and kiss it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. Both of his discoveries are independent of each other. I know you are threatened by his discovery on the eyes, but you don't have to be threatened by the fact that man's will is not free. You still can keep your autonomy.

Why would you think that anyone would be "threatened" by a discovery that someone made about eyes?

The reason you say this is because you are the master of projection. You do it again and again, and it's transparent and pathetic. Obviously, it's you who is threatened by the fact that your father made no discovery about the eyes, or about anything else.

Your entire sense of self-worth, your very identity, is mortgaged to the delusion that your father was a great man who made revolutionary discoveries. Therefore you can never admit that he didn't, and was in fact a big clown; because to do so would mean the destruction of your ego.

None of that is a problem for any of us here. All of us here delight in new, genuine discoveries, and in learning new things. It is you who fears facts and truth, fears them terribly, to the point I should suggest of madness.

I will edit to add: this explains why you will not read a simple 35-page essay by The Lone Ranger on light and vision, while demanding that everyone here read your father's 589-page pile of crap. It frightens you terribly to read that essay, because to do so, and find out how light and vision really work, would destroy you. You cannot face the truth.

It's also funny that when asked why your children do not read your father's book, you say that they are busy and have other things to do. So it's OK for your own children not to read the pile of crap, but a bunch of strangers on the Internet are supposed to drop everything and read the pile of crap? Why? Did it not ever occur to you that we, like your children, have better things to do than read a pile of crap?

Ironically enough, however, many of us HAVE read it, or the most salient portions. And, of course, reading it confirms that it's a pile of crap.

[thedoc]

A good teacher knows how to present and explain material so that the student can understand. One of the primary qualities of a good teacher is the ability to learn and take good advice from others. Peacegirl has demonstrated that she is unwilling to learn material related to the thread. She has demonstrated that she is unwilling to take advice, or even hear it, on the presentation of this material. It can only be concluded that Peacegirl is incapable of learning and therefore incapable of teaching this material. I told her that just telling someone to read the text again when they didn't seem to understand it was not a viable course of action, it required a clarification in different words and phrases. That her next post was to simply post more text indicates an unwillingness or inability to comprehend this concept of teaching. The indication of understanding the text is the ability to rephrase it in other words, that Peacegirl seems to be incapable of this, would indicate that she does not understand the text herself , otherwise she could clarify it in words that the participants on this forum could more easily understand. A bad teacher is one who thinks they know the material better than anyone else, does not need any advice on how to present it, and will not entertain any idea that the text could be improved or made more clear.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have a confession to make. I love bald men (but be assured, I don't love you. ) My father had male pattern baldness, and I use to rub his head and kiss it.

So many levels of weird in this thread. So, so many.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The indication of understanding the text is the ability to rephrase it in other words, that Peacegirl seems to be incapable of this, would indicate that she does not understand the text herself.

That is it precisely. She does not understand her father's claims herself. This is why she can never answer questions like, "How does the reflected light of the moon arrive instantly when God turns on the sun, but the reflected light of your neighbor arrives eight and a half minutes later?" These and a slew of other questions have no answers, because Lessans' claims are senseless. That peacegirl cannot explicate his claims proves that she herself does not undertand them.

But it does not matter. Lessans' book is a holy text for her, flawless in every way, right even when it's wrong, and written by the first infallible man in history, a veritable God. She does not need to understand the text; only affirm it. And that is what she wants from others.

But she'll never get. Too bad, peacegirl. We are rational people, unlike you, and not members of the Lessans cult, which currently numbers one member (you).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. Both of his discoveries are independent of each other. I know you are threatened by his discovery on the eyes, but you don't have to be threatened by the fact that man's will is not free. You still can keep your autonomy.

Originally Posted by davidm

Why would you think that anyone would be "threatened" by a discovery that someone made about eyes?

Because it threatens special relativity, even though I still don't see it.

Originally Posted by davidm

The reason you say this is because you are the master of projection. You do it again and again, and it's transparent and pathetic. Obviously, it's you who is threatened by the fact that your father made no discovery about the eyes, or about anything else.

I'm not projecting anything, nor am I threatened by anything.

Originally Posted by davidm

Your entire sense of self-worth, your very identity, is mortgaged to the delusion that your father was a great man who made revolutionary discoveries. Therefore you can never admit that he didn't, and was in fact a big clown; because to do so would mean the destruction of your ego.

Nope. My ego has nothing to do with it. I know he made revolutionary discoveries, and I want to help to bring them to light because I know they are going to help the world, if not sooner, than later.

Originally Posted by davidm

None of that is a problem for any of us here. All of us here delight in new, genuine discoveries, and in learning new things. It is you who fears facts and truth, fears them terribly, to the point I should suggest of madness.

Who is projecting now?

Originally Posted by davidm

I will edit to add: this explains why you will not read a simple 35-page essay by The Lone Ranger on light and vision, while demanding that everyone here read your father's 589-page pile of crap. It frightens you terribly to read that essay, because to do so, and find out how light and vision really work, would destroy you. You cannot face the truth.

I read the part that is contradictory regarding photons tranducing into electro-chemical signals through certain proteins. It sounds logical, but it doesn't mean it's correct.

Originally Posted by davidm

It's also funny that when asked why your children do not read your father's book, you say that they are busy and have other things to do. So it's OK for your own children not to read the pile of crap, but a bunch of strangers on the Internet are supposed to drop everything and read the pile of crap? Why? Did it not ever occur to you that we, like your children, have better things to do than read a pile of crap?

I'm not telling anybody to drop everything to read the book. But I am on the internet trying to meet people who are the type of thinkers that would be interested in this type of work. I know I'm not in the right place, but I ain't startin over again, so you're stuck with me until I decide to leave.

Originally Posted by davidm

Ironically enough, however, many of us HAVE read it, or the most salient portions. And, of course, reading it confirms that it's a pile of crap.

You of all people (an editor, no doubt) has done the most disservice to this book. For you to call chopping the book into little pieces, reading, is an abomination!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

A good teacher knows how to present and explain material so that the student can understand. One of the primary qualities of a good teacher is the ability to learn and take good advice from others. Peacegirl has demonstrated that she is unwilling to learn material related to the thread. She has demonstrated that she is unwilling to take advice, or even hear it, on the presentation of this material. It can only be concluded that Peacegirl is incapable of learning and therefore incapable of teaching this material. I told her that just telling someone to read the text again when they didn't seem to understand it was not a viable course of action, it required a clarification in different words and phrases. That her next post was to simply post more text indicates an unwillingness or inability to comprehend this concept of teaching. The indication of understanding the text is the ability to rephrase it in other words, that Peacegirl seems to be incapable of this, would indicate that she does not understand the text herself , otherwise she could clarify it in words that the participants on this forum could more easily understand. A bad teacher is one who thinks they know the material better than anyone else, does not need any advice on how to present it, and will not entertain any idea that the text could be improved or made more clear.

I never said it couldn't be made clearer, although I think I did a good job. He even said that if someone could do a better job, please come forward. compiling seven books.

This book was not meant to satisfy the connoisseur of style,
grammar, punctuation, vocabulary and form in general (I’m quite sure
this book has errors when measured by the standards of whether a
certain word should have been capitalized, or a comma should have
gone here instead of there), but was written primarily to reveal
knowledge never before understood. I don’t deny that others could
have done a better job in explaining this discovery, and their services
are still welcome if they can clarify it even more. My job was to make
known this discovery, which I have done to the best of my ability.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

That is it precisely. She does not understand her father's claims herself. This is why she can never answer questions like, "How does the reflected light of the moon arrive instantly when God turns on the sun, but the reflected light of your neighbor arrives eight and a half minutes later?" These and a slew of other questions have no answers, because Lessans' claims are senseless. That peacegirl cannot explicate his claims proves that she herself does not undertand them.

But it does not matter. Lessans' book is a holy text for her, flawless in every way, right even when it's wrong, and written by the first infallible man in history, a veritable God. She does not need to understand the text; only affirm it. And that is what she wants from others.

But she'll never get. Too bad, peacegirl. We are rational people, unlike you, and not members of the Lessans cult, which currently numbers one member (you).

Angakuk even said that there is nothing illogical about efferent vision, so I don't know why you keep repeating the same thing over and over, as if somehow I'm the one at fault for not getting it. If it turns out that Lessans is right after all, this book will become famous. Probably not in my lifetime though. Lessans never thought of himself as a God. I just don't understand why you have such animosity for me and for him. Actually, I do understand. You think I'm a troll, and he is a liar. You think that I'm passing around junk just to make money. But you're wrong David.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it threatens special relativity, even though I still don't see it.

Well of course you don't see why it threatens SR, because you can't afford to see why. Everyone else sees why effortlessly.

But here is the point: Why would you imagine that anyone would feel threatened, if the theory of relativity were threatened? Why would you suppose that anyone would care at all, if the theory of relativity were threatened?

The fact is, the only one who is threatened here is YOU. You are the only one here who has a personal stake in your ideas being correct. Why don't you stop fooling yourself and face up to the facts for once?

Who is projecting now?

You are.

You of all people (an editor, no doubt) has done the most disservice to this book. For you to call chopping the book into little pieces, reading, is an abomination!

I haven't chopped it into little pieces. I read it, and discovered that it was crap.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

So many levels of weird in this thread. So, so many.

Well, her dad was circumcised [Right! Stop that!--Ed.]

Yes . . . of course . . . sorry. . . .

--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk even said that there is nothing illogical about efferent vision, so I don't know why you keep repeating the same thing over and over, as if somehow I'm the one at fault for not getting it.

No, you are once again mistaken. It's absolutely true that there is nothing illogical about efferent vision, provided someone offers a physical mechanism for how it works, which you have not done. Once again, however, this is beside the point.

There are many things that are logically possible, but not physically actual. You would know this if you had ever bothered to look at a book other than your father's -- a book on modal logic, for instance, the same branch of logic that your father ran afoul of in his feeble "demonstration" of the lack of free will.

Efferent vision is logically possible but not physically actual. We know exactly how the eye works, and it works afferently.

I asked you this before, peacegirl, and in your typical dishonest way, you did not answer. Here it is again:

What do you think an eye lens does, and why did lenses evolve?

[Doctor X]

Indeed, it is logically possible that if I toss peacegirl off a cliff, if she flaps her arms, she will fly.

It is physically impossible. This is something tyros of logic make all of the time: assuming what is logical is possible and true.

Now, I would object a bit to that in that to make a logical argument regarding, say, human flight and sight being efferent, one must illogically--and, as peacegirl demontrated--fallaciously ignore facts--which serve as valid premises--appeals to ignorance, et cetera.

--J.D.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Well, her dad was circumcised [Right! Stop that!--Ed.]

Yes . . . of course . . . sorry. . . .

--J.D.

YouTube - ‪Sam Kinison...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it threatens special relativity, even though I still don't see it.

Originally Posted by davidm

Well of course you don't see why it threatens SR, because you can't afford to see why. Everyone else sees why effortlessly.

I'm trying, but so far I don't see the relationship.

Originally Posted by davidm

But here is the point: Why would you imagine that anyone would feel threatened, if the theory of relativity were threatened? Why would you suppose that anyone would care at all, if the theory of relativity were threatened?

Because it was Einstein's theory, number one, and number two, you said you were interested in this topic, in particular, didn't you?

Originally Posted by davidm

The fact is, the only one who is threatened here is YOU. You are the only one here who has a personal stake in your ideas being correct. Why don't you stop fooling yourself and face up to the facts for once?

Why should I have to face up to false allegations regarding this book? To make you more comfortable? What if you were the one that was wrong? Then what? Then who would be fooling whom?

Who is projecting now?

You are.

I think you are because you wouldn't be so upset.

You of all people (an editor, no doubt) has done the most disservice to this book. For you to call chopping the book into little pieces, reading, is an abomination!

Originally Posted by davidm

I haven't chopped it into little pieces. I read it, and discovered that it was crap.

That's the biggest lie yet. I didn't think the lies could get any bigger. Can I ask you something? Is your nose growing bigger by any chance?

[Doctor X]

And yet Sam remains more thoughtful and coherent than Lessans.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, you are once again mistaken. It's absolutely true that there is nothing illogical about efferent vision, provided someone offers a physical mechanism for how it works, which you have not done. Once again, however, this is beside the point.

And I will repeat, just because I don't know the exact mechanism as to how the brain is able to look out through the eyes, as a window, doesn't mean it's wrong. And just because you have an afferent model that sounds logistically valid, doesn't make it necessarily sound.

Originally Posted by davidm

There are many things that are logically possible, but not physically actual. You would know this if you had ever bothered to look at a book other than your father's -- a book on modal logic, for instance, the same branch of logic that your father ran afoul of in his feeble "demonstration" of the lack of free will.

And I will repeat that this knowledge has nothing to do with modal logic, so how can there be a modal fallacy? This knowledge is mathematical, undeniable, and scientific. I'm sorry you don't like those words, but do you see the word logical in there. No, because that's not what this knowledge is based on.

Originally Posted by davidm

Efferent vision is logically possible but not physically actual. We know exactly how the eye works, and it works afferently.

I asked you this before, peacegirl, and in your typical dishonest way, you did not answer. Here it is again:

What do you think an eye lens does, and why did lenses evolve?

We need a lens in order to focus, and yes, the light has to strike the retina in order to measure the refraction error. Sooo? That doesn't discredit efferent vision if that's what you're thinking.

[LadyShea]

just because you have an afferent model that sounds logistically valid, doesn't make it necessarily sound

It doesn't just "sound" valid, it has been empirically verified.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Well of course you don't see why it threatens SR, because you can't afford to see why. Everyone else sees why effortlessly.

Don't you mean 'afferentlessly'?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But he did David; you just don't see it.

But he did not Peacegirl, you just don't see it.

Gee, that was easy and it saves a lot of typing.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It doesn't just "sound" valid, it has been empirically verified.

I'd like to know how it was verified, conclusively, and not just a logical leap of faith that what appears to be occurring, is actually occurring.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to know how it was verified, conclusively, and not just a logical leap of faith that what appears to be occurring, is actually occurring.

You could start by looking at the evidence that has been posted here. Except that you don't really want to know, because if you looked at it you would no longer be able to deny it. Oh, and if you read it and don't agree, you don't need to ask questions, just go back and read it again till you do understand it and indicate that understanding by completely agreeing.