A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Al Gore








Internet Checkers (actual size)


Internet Checkers to Check Internet for Wrong Stuff

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM.COM (Internet News Service) — Internet Checkers will roam the Internet, checking for wrong stuff and deleting it when found, it was announced Saturday.

The announcement was made by Al Gore, the inventor and owner of the Internet, during an online news conference.

“I personally spend 18 hours a day surfing the Net checking for wrong stuff,” Gore said. “But the task has grown too big for me. When I invented the Internet it was just a few Mom and Pop pages. Now it has grown to billions and billions and billions of pages, just like the stars in the sky. I don’t have time for this shit anymore.”

The Checkers, little bandy-legged robots less than half an inch tall, will be deployed by the billions into the tubes that hold the Internet together. Roaming from page to page via the tubes, they will quickly scan each page and delete wrong stuff when found.

“Wrong stuff is bad, and bad stuff is wrong,” Gore said.

Gore said the first target of the Internet Checkers will be an online book entitled, “Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Time.”

“The Checkers have scanned the book and determined that every word on every page is wrong,” Gore said. “So it will be removed from the Internet immediately.”

You are a hoot David. lmao!!!!!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We already had to consign Einstein's special relativity to the large heap of things that cannot be right at the same time as this book. Along with neurology and optics.

Not true. There's only one thing that changes, and that is the direction we see. It does not change optics. And where does neurology come into play? As far as SR, I'm still not sure if it's a contradiction.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It has been explained to you many times that it does. You just ignore the evidence, stick your head in the sand and proclaim it wrong without explaining the why and how of it.

It doesn't change neurology or optics for that matter. Everything works the same way Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

They just all miraculously work while being completely wrong, just like camera's are nothing but light detectors, but magically and mysteriously do not need to wait for light to reach them to take a picture

That's not true either. The fact that light has reached the camera indicates that the object that is reflecting said light is close enough and bright enough for a picture to be taken. You still don't get it, do you?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your enormous willful ignorance on the subject is clear to everyone but you, peacegirl. The camera records light, and nothing else. This is how they were designed. Tiny little light-detectors receive light, and then translate this into a dot of a certain color and brightness on a screen or a photo or in a memory-bank. Look at a digital camera. It will say "10 MegaPixel" - meaning it has that many little dots to make up the image with. The more little dots - the sharper the image.

How in the world does this interfere with efferent vision? Why are you making this so difficult?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Each of those little dots is made by a tiny little light-receptor that records the color and brightness of the light focused on it.

So by definition they have to wait for the light to reach them. It is what they do. I really cannot believe that you could possibly fail to understand this - you must actually be ignoring it.

Who is refuting this? But you have to have the object in the camera's field of view for those little dots to turn into a picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

on account of us designing them as light-detectors, but accidentally making efferent machines in stead, without noticing. These machines furthermore work exactly as if they were not efferent through some amazing coincidence.

Cameras are not efferent or afferent because there's no incoming stimuli. There's only light being reflected off of an image or object that the camera uses to take a picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah yes I forgot. They work by magic.

No, they just don't have a brain, so this concept doesn't even apply to cameras.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please see above for an explanation of how camera's actually work. For the hundredth time you will no doubt ignore it because this is easier than re-examining your dogma.

It's not dogma. You just want me to agree so that we can put this topic to rest.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Simply ignoring the problems of presentism vs eternalism is small potatoes by comparison.

Don't you know it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As you can see above, the amount of reality that must be ignored is much greater, because it is easier to understand and much plainer. Eternalism vs presentism is much more complex - much easier for you to ignore.

I'm not ignoring it. In spite of it's complexity, there is no real proof. Sorry!

[thedoc]

Peacegirls theme song.

YouTube - ‪John Lennon -...

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He doesn't have to go any further in his explanation as to what is "mathematical" and "scientific" because he explained it very clearly in the introduction that these words are synonymous with "undeniable."

He "explained" that he wished to use those words instead of undeniable. He did not provide an adequate explanation of why such substitution was necessary or useful. Though it takes only a small amount of literary license to use "mathematical" instead of "undeniable" (such as "with mathematical precision" or "a mathematical certainty") such uses are more appropriate to casual and idiomatic conversation, and wholly inappropriate to the more exacting language of the world of academia. This is simply because, in the context of the academic, "mathematical" has a very specific meaning (hint: it means that there is math involved), and any writer who knows anything about it would refrain from using that phrasing if there were not any actual formulas to present in the work. At best, using the term without actual math present would be confusing, as it would prompt people to look for what isn't there. At worst, it's deliberate misrepresentation and deception.

Since your father was disdainful of academia and likely intended his book to be read by laypersons, he might be forgiven that idiomatic stretch, if only because he didn't know any better. Until, of course, you get to the "two-sided equation" which is nothing of the kind, and it becomes clear that he simply wishes to borrow the credibility of the language of mathematics to shore up his wobbling mental construct.

The amount of literary license it takes to stretch "scientific" to be synonymous with "undeniable" doesn't even bear consideration. Authors who attempt that are grossly incompetent, woefully ignorant, or deliberately deceptive. Or all three.

Such considerations aside, your father's work remains non-mathematical, unscientific, entirely deniable, and indeed utterly refutable. More effort has been spent doing so in this thread than the incredible (as in, without credibility) nature of his claims warrants. It has been clear for several hundred pages now that you will not be convinced, but as that is not my goal, I do not really care if you continue to ignore any and all refutations presented here, or anywhere.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;961929]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The pronouns are getting everyone confused.

Yet when I asked you multiple times to explain without using any pronouns you refused.

Is it perhaps because you know it can't be explained using proper nouns because the whole idea is based on creative play with pronouns?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Time only exists in reference to the person observing it.

Look up Newtonian Time and Spacetime

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirls theme song.

YouTube - ‪John Lennon - Imagine‬‏

Thanks for sharing. I love that song.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yet when I asked you multiple times to explain without using any pronouns you refused.

Is it perhaps because you know it can't be explained using proper nouns because the whole idea is based on creative play with pronouns?

It's because the only way to see the relationship is through the pronoun "I". It's not creative play. This is not getting anywhere either.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for sharing. I love that song.

I thought you might, have you ever actually listened to the lyrics, closely?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's because the only way to see the relationship is through the pronoun "I". It's not creative play. This is not getting anywhere either.

Much as there is no such thing as a "discovery" that must be accepted, even provisionally, before it can be understood, there is no such thing as a concept that is only understandable through the pronoun "I".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He doesn't have to go any further in his explanation as to what is "mathematical" and "scientific" because he explained it very clearly in the introduction that these words are synonymous with "undeniable."

Originally Posted by Kael

He "explained" that he wished to use those words instead of undeniable. He did not provide an adequate explanation of why such substitution was necessary or useful. Though it takes only a small amount of literary license to use "mathematical" instead of "undeniable" (such as "with mathematical precision" or "a mathematical certainty") such uses are more appropriate to casual and idiomatic conversation, and wholly inappropriate to the more exacting language of the world of academia. This is simply because, in the context of the academic, "mathematical" has a very specific meaning (hint: it means that there is math involved), and any writer who knows anything about it would refrain from using that phrasing if there were not any actual formulas to present in the work. At best, using the term without actual math present would be confusing, as it would prompt people to look for what isn't there. At worst, it's deliberate misrepresentation and deception.

I hope you know by now there is no misrepresentation in this book, let alone deliberate misrepresentation.

Originally Posted by Kael

Since your father was disdainful of academia and likely intended his book to be read by laypersons, he might be forgiven that idiomatic stretch, if only because he didn't know any better. Until, of course, you get to the "two-sided equation" which is nothing of the kind, and it becomes clear that he simply wishes to borrow the credibility of the language of mathematics to shore up his wobbling mental construct.

It is a two-sided equation, and there was no better way to describe it. He was not borrowing the credibility of the language of mathematics to shore up a wobbly mental construct. That's your mental construct.

Originally Posted by Kael

The amount of literary license it takes to stretch "scientific" to be synonymous with "undeniable" doesn't even bear consideration. Authors who attempt that are grossly incompetent, woefully ignorant, or deliberately deceptive. Or all three.

Regardless of the words he used to describe his findings does not in any way negate the validity of what he found.

Originally Posted by Kael

Such considerations aside, your father's work remains non-mathematical, unscientific, entirely deniable, and indeed utterly refutable. More effort has been spent doing so in this thread than the incredible (as in, without credibility) nature of his claims warrants. It has been clear for several hundred pages now that you will not be convinced, but as that is not my goal, I do not really care if you continue to ignore any and all refutations presented here, or anywhere.

What do I have to be convinced of? Do I have to be convinced that Lessans is wrong, when I know he's not? You can't even explain the two-sided equation, yet you sure have a lot to say about it. There have been no valid refutations which is why I ignore them. Since you know that this book is non-mathematical, unscientific, entirely deniable, and indeed utterly refutable, at least explain in your own words what the two sides of the equation are, and why is man's will not free. I bet you can't do it. Yet you tell me I am the ignorant one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Much as there is no such thing as a "discovery" that must be accepted, even provisionally, before it can be understood, there is no such thing as a concept that is only understandable through the pronoun "I".

Kael, I'll guarantee you that you couldn't pass a test if I gave it to you. So don't be so sure of yourself that he has no discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I thought you might, have you ever actually listened to the lyrics, closely?

I have. It's a good theme song.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't change neurology or optics for that matter. Everything works the same way Vivisectus.

Oh good! So efferent vision works through afferent nerves, and lenses (which only redirect light) also work on whatever magic is used to get the image to our brains. Brilliant! At the same time you continue to ignore the fact that SR flatly contradicts FTL sight.

How in the world does this interfere with efferent vision? Why are you making this so difficult?

It has been explained many times, but you continue to stick your head in the sand. A camera needs to wait for the light of an event to reach it - so it is limited by the speed of light. We photograph the moons of jupiter the same way we see them though - so sight is ALSO limited by the speed of light. If this was not the case, then there would be a difference. This also has been explained over and over - you just ignore it and try to shout it down, which clearly shows that you would rather ignore reality than to admit to a mistake in this book. You are a dogmatist.

Who is refuting this? But you have to have the object in the camera's field of view for those little dots to turn into a picture.

You are refuting this. You say a camera works instantly and does not have to wait for light to reach it.

If this wasn't the case then there would be a difference between what we see and what we can photograph. There isn't. So sight is both not efferent and not instant - both are limited by the speed of light.

No, they just don't have a brain, so this concept doesn't even apply to cameras.

Pathetic nonsense. Brain or no brain makes no difference whatever. This concept does not apply to eyes OR cameras, which incidentally show the same image, and therefor cannot be "efferent".

Cameras are light-recorders. Nothing more. It is what we designed them to do. They work almost exactly the same way the human eye does.

It's not dogma. You just want me to agree so that we can put this topic to rest.

It is exactly that - something that you refuse to examine and hold to be true even if there is clear evidence to the contrary. Dogma.

I'm not ignoring it. In spite of it's complexity, there is no real proof. Sorry!

Funny that proof is needed to even doubt your fathers work, which itself requires no proof at all according to you. Typically for religious apologestics, any argument against needs to come with ironclad proof and is often expected to prove a negative, while even the most nebulous, vague argument in favor is hailed as eternal truth.

[Doctor X]

Lessans makes music:

YouTube - ‪Neil Innes - How Sweet...

--J. "Urban Spaceman, Baby!" D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

You have just stated clearly and unequivocally that cameras detect only light. Jupiter is about 30 light minutes away, and Jupiter's day is approximately 10 hours long. If we saw Jupiter in real time, and a camera uses only light, the image of jupiter we see in real time and the image recorded in the camera at the same time should show that Jupiter has rotated approximately 20 degrees.

For a visual, here's my dog and my dog rotated 20 degrees. Is that noticable?


Yet, we don't see this with Jupiter. Please explain why.

Cameras detect light as it is reflected off of objects (in this case Jupiter) or emitted from images. Therefore, a picture of Jupiter shown in real time would indicate where Jupiter is in its rotation compared to other times of day. But without the comparison we wouldn't see a noticeable difference. P.S. Your dog is so cute.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Most Ph.Ds--learn to use the correct abbreviations!--and "highly regarded scholars" know sight is afferent.

FAIL.

--J.D.

But every once in awhile they get it wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You basically said that highly educated and intelligent people were like chimpanzees compared to your father

I never actually said anyone is a chimpanzee. Time to refresh everyone's memory.

They knew less than he did. That would be like asking a chimpanzee to help me with my math homework. I'm being serious. Imagine for a moment someone with a genuine discovery asking a professor for help when the professor himself has no understanding of the subject matter. He didn't need help. He knew what he had. It took him years to come to these findings. He burned his first set of books because he wasn't happy. What if he went to a professor and said that he discovered (hypothetically people) that two plus two equals four, and his professor claimed that it was five. Is he supposed to listen to the professor because he went to college, or trust himself because he sees the relations?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

When you were behaving condescendingly to Vivisectus just recently over the issue of how a camera works, did you forget about this post?

I never behaved condescendingly to Vivisectus unless he behaved condescendingly to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

davidm was referring to Vivisectus' mind as being like a chimpanzees compared to yours, just as you said other people's mind were like chimpanzees compared to your fathers.

I never said that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You initially claimed that the germinal substance was a physical, material substance that has mass and takes up space. You are now backpedaling and stating it is an immaterial concept.

Do you know the difference between a material, physical substance that has mass an takes up space and an immaterial concept?

So either you lied, or you were mistaken. If you were mistaken, why not admit that instead of blaming me for not understanding what you were saying. If you lied, then admit that too.

I know that immaterial concepts can be "true", because I have thoughts, ideas, and emotions. These immaterial concepts arise from consciousness and consciousness is a property of a living brain. If an individual brain cannot be born again and again than the consciousness that was a product of that brain cannot be born again and again. This is a fact.

Living things have living tissue and DNA and that DNA is passed on through reproductive process. Conscious beings, like humans, usually develop a brain. New humans have their own brain that produces their own consciousness and that consciousness does not exist without that brain. So neither I/me, you, or we can or will be born again and again because I/me, we, and you are nothing but a product of our individual living brains.

If you still insist that Lessans feel good wordplay is not woo, you have to reconcile it with the biological facts above.

No one is arguing with what you're saying. That's why you're not seeing the relationship. You can't let go of the fact that when one is born, it's not YOU as you are now. There is no connection, therefore the brain of YOU is gone. There is nothing weird or supernatural about this knowledge once you understand it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Time (which is actually spacetime) is not a manmade construct, so your claim is shockingly and hysterically incorrect.

How can time exist outside of ourselves when all we have is the present? There is no past or future except in our memories. Without our memory of the past, or our thinking about what's to come, we would only be cognizant of this moment in time.

[LadyShea]

You made a mathematical relation. I thought you were really good at understanding them? You said:

Professors are to your father what chimpanzees are to humans.

Just like 2 is to 4 what 3 is to 6

Weasel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What the hell are you talking about? I gave you a perfectly clear example - if time is a manmade concept, then how come 2 clocks show the kind of difference that is predicted by special relativity?

Time can be measured in all kinds of ways, and be right, according to that unit of measurement. But that has nothing to do with time existing independently of the individual who is using that measurement of time for his benefit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about? Atomic clocks on Earth and atomic clocks in orbit objectively measure time differently due to their relative speeds and locations. This is what SR predicts, and this is what happens in fact.

How can anyone measure time as if it's a thing? We measure the effects of time, not time itself.