A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dude, she wouldn't even concede that seeing flashes of light conveying an understood message in Morse code would be a transfer of information using light only, and therefore instantaneous communication of information if we see the light in real time.

She doesn't care how light works.

That's exactly it. She doesn't give a shit about what's true, how things work, or reality. She doesn't care about logic itself. All she cares about is selling her book and making some cash.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here is the thing: she does not even understand her father's own writing in this section. I, otoh, understand him perfectly. Perhaps I will even explain to her what he was getting at.

This woman is so breathakingly dumb that she does not even understand that at least with respect to this one issue, she has two allies, Tom Clark at naturalist.org and Wayne Stewart. Their views and Lessans' views on this matter are exactly alike.

They are not alike at all.

Originally Posted by "davidm

But no, the little idiot, with reading comprehnsion zero, thinks Stewart, for example, said that people take over other dead people's bodies at death.

It's not far off if he's saying there is a transference of any kind from someone who died to the next person.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dude, she thinks there are people whose job it is to police the internet for incorrect information. She also thinks that if an internet site says someone said something, they not only must have said it, but they must have posted the quote themselves. She thinks time is a human construct that doesn't exist without humans to measure its passage.

Really, at this point, I am at a loss.

I don't know whether you're laughing with me or at me. I was actually joking about internet police, and boy I haven't heard the end of it.

If an internet site says something, I thought that it was checked out by that site. I never thought that if someone said something, they must have posted the quote themselves.

As far as time, it is always in relation to our units of measurement. But to say that time exists without humans to measure its passage is like saying time is conscious of itself. Please stop making me look like an idiot. Thank you very much.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

My, my, my, that's all you can do is assert, eh, peacegirl? No counterargument, no explanation, no rebuttal, not the slightest effort to show why Vivisectus is wrong, whereas he, I, LadyShea, The Lone Ranger, TheDoc and many others have laid out chapter and verse the moutains of evidence that prove Lessans wrong.

Truly you are epic in your Fail.

Where have you laid out chapter and verse the mountains of evidence that prove Lessans wrong? WHERE??????

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It's u. U R teh punchline.

All I have to say to you is

[peacegirl]

No, because even if the person is catatonic, they are still alive. Their heart is beating. There are only two options here. Does your heart beat, or doesn't it?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Heartbeat does not define life or death. OMG that hasn't been the demarcation for decades...where have you been?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does LadyShea. Ask any pastor, surgeon, doctor, or scientist, what distinguishes life from death.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no consensus on the subject. That's my whole point. The point at which one can be declared dead has been moved, and moved, and moved again due to advances in medicine and the advances in measuring various biological functioning.

I'm not talking about the advances in medicine. When the heart stops where there is no blood going to the organs or brain, the person is declared dead.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lack of heart beat hasn't been the determination of death in decades, however. Nobody uses that definition.

Forget the definition for a minute. Remember, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, if their heart is still beating, they're alive.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, not obviously. Heart beat isn't part of the determination. Ask any doctor.

A person could be brain dead but their heart beating, and still be alive in a technical sense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm only talking about the fact that we are either alive or dead. There are no other options.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People who have been declared legally dead can have beating hearts and respiration through artificial means. The cells of their body remain living, even though the person has been declared legally dead.

This is a fact.

They may be legally dead but until their hearts have stopped beating, they are not going to the morgue in a body bag.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not when it comes to the law, or to burying someone. We don't bury people who are alive, do we?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We weren't discussing burial, we were discussing the point at which someone is considered dead. However yes, a body that has been embalmed and buried or cremated is certainly dead.

And we don't bury them when they are declared legally dead but not actually dead.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course he did. You are the one that is changing the definition to suit your purposes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'm not changing the definition, I am asking you to clarify your and Lessans definition because yours did not seem to match my understanding or current knowledge.

I didn't realize a simple question would turn into pages and pages of posts. Regardless of the definition you use, we only have two options. We either live our lives the best way we can, or we commit suicide. What other choice is there?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Remember way back when I said it seems Lessans and you had very a very childlike and un-nuanced understanding of the world? Yeah, here's another example.

This is not about nuances LadyShea. This is a straightforward question, and you keep dodging it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know whether you're laughing with me or at me. I was actually joking about internet police, and boy I haven't heard the end of it.

Well then, you played it so incredibly straight you should be in Hollywood. Because it absolutely didn't sound like a joke, especially with the additional "how can we know what is true" stuff regarding analyzing information.

In fact, I am seriously tempted to call bullshit right now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an internet site says something, I thought that it was checked out by that site.

What do you mean by that site? The site owner is almost always the main or sole contributer

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never thought that if someone said something, they must have posted the quote themselves.

You asked why the doctor quoted would have posted his opinion online, when I questioned if you had verified that the quotes you used in the book were accurately attributed. Shall I find your exact quote*?

*found it

LadyShea
You could, if you are worried, look up the people whose names are attached to the quotes you lifted, and see if they are okay with their quote and name being used. Dr. Charles E. Page (one of the quoted people) apparently has a practice in Durango, Colorado and his contact info is easily found through Google.

Peacegirl:
I could, I guess. But the question remains: If he didn't want anyone to quote him, why did he post his opinion online?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as time, it is always in relation to our units of measurement.

How we humans choose to measure time is related to us humans. Time itself exists objectively regardless if anyone is measuring it or not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But to say that time exists without humans to measure its passage is like saying time is conscious of itself.

Um, no, not at all. That's not even close to correct. Where did you get that idea?

Time exists with or without humans to measure it, just as the Universe exists with or without humans to observe it, and just as the Earth existed (and time passed) before there were humans. In fact, it is called spacetime for that reason, it cannot be separated from the workings of the Universe any more than gravity can be separated from the workings of the Universe.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop making me look like an idiot. Thank you very much.

That's not me making you look like an idiot.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are not alike at all.

You are so fucking stupid you do not even understand your father's own writings. That's why you copy and paste wallpapers of his text without trying to explain it in your own words -- you can't!

The claims of Lessans and Stewart and Clark are exactly fucking alike, you moron.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where have you laid out chapter and verse the mountains of evidence that prove Lessans wrong? WHERE??????

Where?

1. Go to page one of this thread.

2. Begin reading.

Have fun!

btw, dipshit, did you ever read TLR's essay on light and sight?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And we don't bury them when they are declared legally dead but not actually dead.

No, we cut out their viable living organs and remove viable living tissue for donation after they have been declared legally dead but aren't all the way dead. Why do you think brain dead people are kept on life support machines?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We either live our lives the best way we can, or we commit suicide. What other choice is there?

We can mentally check out and take no steps to sustain our lives or hasten our death.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not about nuances LadyShea. This is a straightforward question, and you keep dodging it.

It's not a straightforward question, it is a simplistic one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I still haven't gotten over fluff. Surely there is a limit to even the most fanatical willful ignorance?

There is no other definition for "That which leads to the most satisfaction" than "That which people end up selecting", making the basis of the whole show a mere tautology. This is not addressed bar saying "no it isn't".

Absolutely 100% wrong Vivisectus. You can't see his proof for the life of you because you don't want to see it. It's right there on pp. 46-59, but you can't believe it's that easy.

Camera's, designed as light-receptors, work efferently and do not have to wait for light to reach them despite having been designed to receive light and create an image out of that light. This, also, is simply covered by "That is not unscientific."

Wrong. Light has to reach the light receptor of a camera, which means that the eye and a camera's lens will see the same exact picture in real time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is nothing in the book that proves that blame is what enables justification, and that justification is a requirement for a harmful act. This is also just waved away by "it just works that way".

I have answered this many times. Knowing that you will be blamed allows your conscience to do the very thing that blame and punishment is trying to prevent. For example, knowing that if caught, you will be punished, eases your conscience and allows you to do that very thing (if that's your desire). It doesn't create the desire; it just prevents your conscience from working at the highest level.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then there is the problem that instant, efferent vision flatly contradicts special relativity. The answer to that? "No it doesn't".

If SR is dependent on afferent vision to be true, then yes, it does. And???

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Optics, the physiology of the eye and the optic nerve - waved away. Why? "My father spent a lot of time thinking about it."

OMG, I never waved away the physiology of the eye or the optic nerve. The only thing I'm waving away is the transduction of light into electro-chemical signals that the brain can decode into an image.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And all this on account of a self-important hack, ignorant enough to not even notice that basic science contradicted everything he said.

Fluff indeed.

There is no fluff. He had definite reasons for why he believed the eyes are efferent. More testing will confirm or deny his claim.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Unfortunately, all of your apparent disproof of his claims hold absolutely no weight. They are an effort to discredit Lessans at any cost. I call that the epitome of fluff.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then I am sure you can easily refute each of these points. Let us start with cameras.

Cameras receive light, but that light is coming from an existing object or image in real time, not an image from the past.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. Light has to reach the light receptor of a camera, which means that the eye and a camera's lens will see the same exact picture in real time.

Wow, you are the gift of stoopid that just keeps on giving, aren't you?



If the light has to reach the camera, as you just said, then the camera ain't taking pictures in real time, derper!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did it again. That was me, not Kael.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought by now you would realize that his reasoning ability was far superior than many P.h.Ds and highly regarded scholars.

Why should we have realized that? There is nothing in his book or your defense of that book which suggests anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by davidm

If Lessans said it, it's right, period!

Indeed, peacegirl's entire presentation amounts to an extended argument from authority. What she fails to realize is that for an argument from authority to be persuasive it is necessary that the various disputants recognize the expertise of the authority in question. Unfortunately, for peacegirl, she is the only party in this discussion who recogizes Lessans as an expert authority. Nevertheless, she persists in citing him as if it were an established fact that he was the expert she believes him to be. It is like citing the Bible as an authority while trying to convice a panel of atheists that what the Bible says is true. She is trying to convice us that what Lessans says is true and her only evidence is Lessans' own words. She can do this until the cows come home and will still not work. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guarantee you, they won't put someone in the grave unless they know for sure he is dead.

The Premature Burial

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the light is already here (which it most likely is since light is finite), the camera would be taking the picture of Jupiter in real time.

What do you mean "light is finite", what do you mean the light is "already here"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The majority of light from these planets has already gotten here a long time ago

Have the majority of water molecules from the Mississippi River already reached the Gulf a long time ago?

Maybe we do need to post some elementary stuff about light

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There, you did it again. That was The Lone Ranger, not me. Once again I am not insulted by the false attribution, as I agree with TLR wholeheartedly. I do, however, consider your continued failure to proofread and check your attributions to be an insult to everyone posting in or reading this thread.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It didn't confuse me, but it did require that I think through the question before answering it. Doesn't that sound like a good plan?

That does sound like a good plan. You ought to actually give it a try. The quality of your responses might increase considerably.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're giving yourself too much credit.

And you are claiming way to much credit for Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You missed the whole point Angakuk? Why the anger?

There is no anger there. If you are referring to my "[t]hey didn't need no stinkin' germinal substance" line, that is merely a play on the Stinking Badges meme. It was certainly not an expression of anger on my part. The fact that you frequently interpret posts which are not expressing anger as if they were an expression of anger is somewhat revealing. Why do you suppose you do that?

YouTube - ‪We don't need no...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it is, and you resent it. Why, I don't know.

I don't resent it that Lessans does this. I find it both humorous and rather revealing that Lessans (and you) believes that his observations and reasoning are so much superior to nearly everyone else's. Nothing in his writing, or your defense of his writing, suggests that this is even remotely the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only if the shoe fits.

But the shoe doesn't fit. You have rejected, out of hand, numerous scientific and scholarly studies on no more evidence than the fact that they did not support your beliefs. At the same time you are rejecting these well documented studies you are also, on the flimsiest of pretexts, making use of unsubstantiated claims from unsourced internet sites.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

Arg, this thread is making me crazy! It's been going for almost four months now and I can't look away.

You know why? If I'd been looking away I would have missed the whole Internet Checkers deal!

So yeah ... still obsessively hanging in there.

In our pasture there are two mares, a sorrel and a paint. There is also a mule colt, the offspring of the sorrel mare. The colt was born early in the spring. This afternoon I happened to notice the colt trying to mount the paint mare. I found this behavior kind of funny on several points. First, he is too small for his equipment to reach its intended target. Second, he is too young to accomplish anything useful even were he able to reach the target. Third, he is a mule. That is to say that, even if he were not too small and too immature it remains the case that he is infertile and the effort, even should he be successful, would ultimately prove futile, at least as far as producing any offspring is concerned. So, one may well ask, why is he engaging in this frustrating and ultimately futile endeavor? I assume that he is getting some benefit from the behavior, even if it is only the satisfaction of doing that which comes naturally to him and to which he is compelled by his very nature.

Consideration of my participation in this thread leads to a feeling of deep and profound sympathy for that mule colt. Although it is highly unlikely that anything I say to peacegirl will produce a measurable or useful result, I find that I am unwilling to resist the urge to screw with her.

I suppose that those who are just lurkin in this thread are in much the same position that I was this afternoon as I watched that colt repeatedly attempt, and fail, to achieve the impossible. That is to say, they are likely to be sympathizing with us in our futile attempts to achieve the impossible and laughing at the absurdity of the entire enterprize.

YouTube - ‪Bing Crosby - Swinging...

&NR=1

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, you little idiot, that is NOT the answer that anyone has given you. The answer is that we have shown you EMPIRICAL PROOF that he was wrong about efferent seeing and real-time seeing, and we have shown that his argument about free will suffers both from logical circularity and the modal fallacy, and we have also explained the empirical and philosophical poverty of his views on what happens when we die.

You're all washed up on all counts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You know? Me too. I did not believe it before, and part of me still does not want to believe it now, but I must admit that I am running out of excuses and ideas. ignorance beats informed - it does not require effort, meticulousness or mental discipline, and can be condensed into the simple words: "No it isn't, because it says so in (insert holy book)"

If that's all you think about my contribution in here, then so be it. But did you ever think it is YOU who is ignorant because you won't allow yourself to even consider the possibility that this discovery is real? Coming from your false position, it is no wonder that it makes no difference what I say. The answer is and will always be the same, "He has no proof."

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is indeed one of the many reasons why the book has little worth - there is no proof for any of it. Nor is it logical,

Vivisectus, I'm really shocked by your response. Not only is it logical, it is undeniable. Just because you don't see it doesn't make it wrong. None of you even understand the two-sided equation. None of you have read this book in its entirety, and yet you go on and on and on about how little worth this book has.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

- riddled as it is with fallacies and unsupported assertions. Also, it displays a staggering amount of ignorance of philosophy and basic science, and yet feels perfectly able to speak authoritatively about both.

It is not riddled with any fallacies or unsupported assertions. These are valid observations. You say a staggering amount of ignorance of philosophy and basic science? He was not ignorant about anything he wrote about.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your father was probably simply not aware that special relativity contradicted his ideas flatly. If he was, he would probably have at least mentioned some of the more obvious examples and attempted to deal with them, but he didn't.

He didn't have to do that. He had insight into what he discovered. He knew that 2+2=4. He didn't have to prove to you, who believes it's 5, that he is right except to offer his accurate observations.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He also seems to have seen no problem with cameras producing the same image as what we see. Again, it probably just never occurred to him.

What never occurred to him? Cameras don't prove him wrong. Geezeeeeeeeeee!!!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The problem that arises when you say "That which happened had to happen, because it happened" has been common knowledge in philosophy, and has been for a long time. This seems to have passed him by completely as well.

That's the conclusion. You don't seem to grasp what observations led to his basic premise. How many times do I have to say this?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why was this? Why can it occur to us in a few weeks, while it never seems to have dawned on him that there might be a problem there, or at least that these objections might arise? Would a gigantic brain-box like him not have foreseen this in the 30 years it took him to put this together?

Why did you call him a brain-box? Was that to put him down?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If he knew about them, you would at least have expected a quick few lines explaining it away - but no, there is none.

His job was to demonstrate what he observed, and he did it with precision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which leads us to believe that the likely reason for this is that like you, he never even knew what the theory of relativity was. That it never occurred to him that a camera is nothing but a light-detector. That he was never aware of the problems with saying "People are compelled to choose that which leads to their greatest satisfaction".

You, however, do not have this excuse.

I don't need an excuse, and I don't need to defend this book. You can take it or leave it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

Arg, this thread is making me crazy! It's been going for almost four months now and I can't look away.

You know why? If I'd been looking away I would have missed the whole Internet Checkers deal!

So yeah ... still obsessively hanging in there.

Hey I'm right there with ya. Everyone's driving me so crazy, I don't know what's going to come out of my mouth anymore.

[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.

I don't put my head in the sand. I can't get a word in edgewise as far as explaining his first discovery. Everyone keeps changing the subject as if it doesn't matter. This is so important because it then leads to the two-sided equation, which no one cares about either. How am I supposed to move forward?

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

Originally Posted by 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.

We don't know everything about the workings of the brain. There is no image that is being redirected. How could that be if we're seeing the image directly Vivisectus? The lens focuses on the object using light as a necessary condition. What's so hard to believe? Finally, efferent vision in no way contradicts FTL sight because nothing is being transmitted. I don't want to rehash that again.

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

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.

No there wouldn't. If a camera can take a picture, the eyes can see the object as well. If the eyes see the object, it's also in the camera's field of view. If efferent vision is correct, the speed of light has nothing to do with it, because we are observing the object or image in real time, not in delayed time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

That's so funny that you would call me a dogmatist when Lessans predicted that dogmatism would prevent his knowledge from coming to light. And that's exactly what's happening.

It is true that many men before me, including socialists,
communists, even capitalists also thought they had discovered the
cause of, and solution to, the various problems of human relation, and
their enthusiasm was no doubt just as positive and sincere as my own.
However, there is this difference between us. I have absolute proof
that cannot be denied by any reader; they did not. Mine can be
adequately communicated; theirs was never disentangled from the
illusion of reality borne out of abstract thought and imagination.
Mine is purely scientific; theirs an expression of dogmatic belief.

In
view of the serious nature of this discovery, the effects of which will
beneficently ramify into every conceivable direction causing religious
minds to consider this the return of the expected Messiah; and since
it also contravenes a belief held true by nearly all of mankind, I am
once again asking the indulgence of every reader to please refrain from
jumping to any premature conclusions, to put aside if only for the
time being the unverified knowledge gathered from books and teachers
and heed only the truth reflected in my words.

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

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

I retracted that statement. There has to be light, but the object has to be in view as well. A camera cannot take a picture of light alone that is supposed to contain images of Columbus discovering America. That's total nonsense.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

If efferent vision is correct, there would not be a difference because the object or image is present when a picture is taken, or when we see it in real time.

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

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".

The fact that cameras and eyes see the same thing would not be in contradiction if efferent vision turns out to be true. It just means the object is large enough where the lens of a camera and the lens of the eye see the same thing. It would have nothing to do with the speed of light only because there is no time element when we're looking out through the eyes, as a window, instead of an image traveling to the eyes to be decoded.

Originally Posted by Vivisecutus

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.

I agree.

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

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 will repeat: This is not dogma.

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!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

All I can do is to share his observations. But I can't do that if no one wants to even engage in a step by step discussion. You're all jumping all over the place. You'll never be able to recognize its validity that way. We go three steps forward and two steps back. How am I ever going to get you to understand what this man accomplished for the benefit of all mankind?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're all washed up on all counts.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, I'm really shocked by your response.

So cute!

Just because you don't see it doesn't make it wrong. None of you even understand the two-sided equation. None of you have read this book in its entirety, and yet you go on and on and on about how little worth this book has.

It has no worth at all, except as a source of hilarity unintended by your father. By putting this out you are making him a laughing stock.

[thedoc]

I was just watching a WWII documentary about the war in the South Atlantic which included the 'Hunt for the Admiral Graf Spee' and an account of the 'Battle of the River Plate'. What, you may ask does this have to do with the thread? Well I'll tell you.
In the nariation of the program, which was produced by the victors, the Graf Spee was described as "Brilliantly Designed" and "Perfectly suited for the role", when in fact she was neither. The Graf Spees design was primarily political, she was not a proper battleship, cruser, or mercant raider, she was not well shuited for any military role, only a political one. The producers were inflating the power and importance of the ship for only one reason. To defeat a week foe isn't very impressive, but to defeat a powerful foe is a major victory. Likewise Lessans had his imaginary encounters with Ph,D's, College Professors, Priests and Rabi's, those who, in his mind, had the most education, so to best them would be a major accomplishment. Just how impressive would it have been to recount a conversation with a friend at the Pool Hall, not a place noted for heavy thinkers. So to bolster his own esteem Lessans used those who represented the highest level of accademic accomplishment.
The other problem with the program was in the video portion, which was typically very poor. Those in charge of "carefully selecting Archival Footage" seemed to know nothing about the ships involved or the ships in the film. Those involved were, of course, the Graf Spee with tripple turrets fore and aft, and the british ships Exeter, Ajax, and the Achilles, all with superfiring twin turrets. And yet many of the shots showed superfiring tripple turrets of a light cruser, and shots of French and Italian Battleships, and even a shot of the Bismark. None of these ships had any part in the battle and the Bismark was not even commissioned yet. All this was extraneous footage having nothing to do with the battle, much like Lessans extraneous diversions into subjects and topics that had nothing to do with the main subject, but only served to divert attention and obstruct the development of the main points. Much like the producers who had little or no knowledge of the details of the ships Lessans displayed little or no real knowledge of these extraneous discussions. There was no reason to include them except to divert attention away from the real message, to confuse and throw everyone off so the main topic could be asserted without challenge.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is arguing with the way cameras work? The only thing I'm arguing with is whether we see the image in real time, or whether we see a delayed image. Cameras are just a tool.

Again you ignore that cameras record light itself. They do not "take a picture" or "see an image".

They simply detect and record light. So whatever light is already there can only show an image from the time the light started travelling back from the object - about 30 minutes ago in the case of Jupiter. It cannot show any image "in real time" - if they did, it would have to record something other than light.

Again this has been painstakingly explained to you, but you simply stick your head in the sand, say something incoherent about images and "taking pictures" to cover up the fact you have absolutely no idea how to make reality fit your fathers book, and then carry on as if nothing happened. This is the behavior of a dogmatic fundamentalist.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;962206]

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.

I don't put my head in the sand. I can't get a word in edgewise as far as explaining his first discovery. Everyone keeps changing the subject as if it doesn't matter. This is so important because it then leads to the two-sided equation, which no one cares about either. How am I supposed to move forward?

You do indeed - you ignore evidence that contradicts what your father says. You then try to change the subject and talk about something else, trying to pretend nothing is wrong. It is rather dishonest.

We don't know everything about the workings of the brain. There is no image that is being redirected. How could that be if we're seeing the image directly Vivisectus? The lens focuses on the object using light as a necessary condition. What's so hard to believe? Finally, efferent vision in no way contradicts FTL sight because nothing is being transmitted. I don't want to rehash that again.

We don't know everything there is no know about pigs either, but I am pretty sure they cannot fly by flapping their trotters. You are right - there is no image, there is only light. You are the one stating that we directly see objects through some magical mediumless medium, not me. The lens does nothing but redirect light so it forms a focused image on the retina or light receptor on a camera. And finally, efferent sight IS FTL sight. What it contradicts is special relativity - you just unilaterally decided that it does not as you declared that information gained through sight has not traveled. The fact that it makes no difference how the information from point a ends up at point b is another thing you simply ignore.

No there wouldn't. If a camera can take a picture, the eyes can see the object as well. If the eyes see the object, it's also in the camera's field of view. If efferent vision is correct, the speed of light has nothing to do with it, because we are observing the object or image in real time, not in delayed time.

As predicted, you babble about "fields of view" and go back to what you started out saying, even though I have already shown it to be nonsense. The camera records only light itself. This light forms a different image on its receptors that the light that came from jupiter 30 minutes ago.

So if efferent vision was correct, we would see a difference between naked eye observation and photographs.

Again - this has been explained over and over. You keep responding to it with incoherent babbling that does not mean anything. You don't even know what you are trying to say yourself - you are just trying to sound like you are saying something to cover up how shoddy this book is, probably even from yourself.

That's so funny that you would call me a dogmatist when Lessans predicted that dogmatism would prevent his knowledge from coming to light. And that's exactly what's happening.

True to form, you respond by saying "no! You are!" which ofcourse is no kinf of answer. Show me the evidence that I am ignoring, and I will gladly re-examine my point of view. The same cannot be said of you.

I retracted that statement. There has to be light, but the object has to be in view as well. A camera cannot take a picture of light alone that is supposed to contain images of Columbus discovering America. That's total nonsense.

You contradict yourself - that means you stand by that statement, and that a camera is limited by the speed of light.

A camera records light. If light speed is finite, then that means there must be a delay for the light that forms that image to reach the camera. This means that the farther away, the older the image is going to be by the time it reaches the camera.

Cameras record only light - they do not "see", the do not do anything but receive light and record how bright it is and what color it has. So for sure - a camera 500 lightyears away would record light that began to travel 500 years ago.

This is quite obvious and easy to understand, unless you are a dogmatist who refuses to deal with any evidence that contradicts her fixed beliefs.

If efferent vision is correct, there would not be a difference because the object or image is present when a picture is taken, or when we see it in real time.

Not true - the camera does not see. It only records light. So there would be a difference.

The fact that cameras and eyes see the same thing would not be in contradiction if efferent vision turns out to be true. It just means the object is large enough where the lens of a camera and the lens of the eye see the same thing. It would have nothing to do with the speed of light only because there is no time element when we're looking out through the eyes, as a window, instead of an image traveling to the eyes to be decoded.

You ignore the fact that cameras record nothing but light. They do not "take" pictures. Light falls unto their receptors and is changed into a picture. Since it is light they record, they must wait for it to reach us.

The result is the same as what the human eye sees.

I agree.

You think you do, but you do not understand its implications.

I will repeat: This is not dogma.

And by doing so you make it all the clearer that it is - you ignore all evidence to the contrary and repeat it, without refuting it in the slightest. Dogma.

All I can do is to share his observations. But I can't do that if no one wants to even engage in a step by step discussion. You're all jumping all over the place. You'll never be able to recognize its validity that way. We go three steps forward and two steps back. How am I ever going to get you to understand what this man accomplished for the benefit of all mankind?

No problem! Just admit that efferent sight is not possible, and I will happily move on to other parts of this work. If you cannot, then there is little point in discussing anything with you, as you will only dogmatically repeat your religious screed at me in an effort to evangelize rather than convince.