A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, he never boasted, he just demanded an audience with 2 sitting Presidents and sued one of them for refusing.

LadyShea, you really are judging him very harshly. You were not in his shoes, so I'm asking you and everyone else to stop making a joke out of this. He never sued anyone actually. I think I'm going to take this out of the book because it's being used against him.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think I'm going to take this out of the book because it's being used against him.

That's a good idea. Here are some other things you should take out of the book: Everything from Pages 1 through 589 inclusive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would you continue to see red light if the source has changed to blue and the light doesn't need to travel to our eyes to see the color?

You're right. If it's the actual light source, we would see the change of color instantly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So it can only be proven true if we implement it to see if it is true.

Really, you think this is a rational argument?

It would be if you truly understood the facts, but you don't LadyShea. You think this is one big unsupported assertion, which it's not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Way to dodge his question. He asked what experiments have been done on Lessans ideas. The answer is "none", and you know it.

Sidhe, the only support we've been able to get is that Lessans made "astute observations".

That's true. His observations were accurate and I can't believe that no one wants to understand these principles more fully. They don't because they are stuck on empirical evidence as being the end all, so obviously they think he has nothing. They won't even give him a chance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would you continue to see red light if the source has changed to blue and the light doesn't need to travel to our eyes to see the color?

I misunderstood the question, so I changed it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can use the scientific method; it's just that it's not easy to set up an experiment, but it can be done. It is falsifiable as I've said many times. I would be so happy if this could finally be resolved, one way or another. But tests have to be reliable. I'm not going to let bias ruin it. Do you not think some of these empirical studies aren't biased, skewing, or misinterpreting, the answers that they are looking for?

Originally Posted by Sidhe

If that's the case you have your answer, set up a test and make it falsifiable then. Or don't and make it not even wrong. I have stated a contention that you cannot prove this with science, you now have to destroy that assertion. I don't think it's empirically possible. Convince me it is.

It is difficult to set up a test, but not impossible. I'm just not sure how to proceed because isolating all the variables is not an easy thing to do in our present environment.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Digression and an anecdote I once suggested that someone's ideas on intelligent design were not even wrong, and they took it as a compliment. I was amused anyway.

The only real proof is if this knowledge works, and it does, but people are absolutely stuck on the evidence. They won't even read any further. After all this time we never once got into the real meat of his first discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by liminus

If I continue to see red light then I am not seeing in "real time". I am seeing light that was emitted in the past. The image my brain creates via my eyes is an image of the past. There is always light travelling towards you when you see something.

Now, please answer my follow-up question: If (as you say) I can see the sun right now in "real time", then simultaneously there is 8-minute-old light streaming into my eyes from the sun.

Let's say a huge disc appears in front of the sun, just a few miles above its surface. According to you, I would see the sun blacked out instantly. However, for the next 8 minutes the light from the pre-block sun will still be travelling towards me, streaming into my eyes.

So what do I see? The sun? Or a blacked-out sun?

Thanks.

We would be seeing a blacked-out sun because we are looking directly at the light source; we are not getting a delayed image of the sun.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course, nothing is 100 percent reliable for her royal higness, who knows absolutely nothing about science and wouldn't know an experiment if it bit her in the ass.

There hundreds if not thousands of experiments done every day that rule out real-time seeing. Every time you go to an optometerist, real-time seeing is ruled out.

No it isn't.

Originally Posted by davidm

Every GPS device in use rules it out. The operation of high-energy particle accelerators rules it out. The observations of eclipses rules it out. We have shown all this to you throughout hundreds of pages, and here you are, ever the dipshit, going "derp!"

GPS systems do not rule out real time seeing. Where do you get this idea?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Without tests they are deniable. Conscience doesn't work in a predictable way at all

It absolutely does LadyShea. We all need some kind of justification to hurt others. Sometimes the justification is not obvious, but it's there. Babies don't just grow up to be killers. Killers are created by society.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it isn't.

GPS systems do not rule out real time seeing. Where do you get this idea?

You are a fucking idiot, as usual.



You have no clue how interconnected all of our technology is to a world in which real-time seeing is IMPOSSIBLE. Your question above betrays yet again your invincible ignorance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hi Liminus, how ya doing? I'm glad you found me. To answer your first question, yes, I have been doing this on and off since I compiled this book in 2003, but this is the last time.

Originally Posted by liminus

I am astonished by your tenacity.

I only have the tenacity because I know this is a genuine discovery.

This has been so difficult, even though I've gotten better at answering the questions that have been thrown at me. When I first came online, I was totally unprepared for the unwelcome responses I got. My skin hasn't gotten any thicker, sorry to say.

Originally Posted by liminus

Well I can't help you with that. I don't want to sound like I'm lecturing you, but from what I've read of this thread and what I remember, you seem to have a hard time understanding the phenomenon of skepticism.

There are many, many people in this world (myself included) who react to every new idea with skepticism. What I mean by that is that when I hear a new idea, I don't consider its merits first. The first thing I look for is problems. The reason that I do this is because this method has proven itself to be an excellent barometer of the bullshit->brilliant scale. That's all people have been doing with Lessans' ideas; deliberately looking for problems, however you seem to react extremely defensively when this happens.

The problem here is that no one has read the book. How can people pass judgment prematurely the way they have. He even writes about skepticism, which can go too far.

If you recall, in the 19th century Gregor Mendel made a discovery
in the field of heredity. He was unable to present his findings because
there was an established theory already being taught as true. The
professors he contacted had their own theories and they concluded
that it was impossible for him to have discovered anything new since
he was nothing in comparison to them. If these professors had taken
the time to scientifically investigate his claims they would have found
that he was correct and they were mistaken, but this would have made
them the laughingstock of the entire student world. In the end it was
Nageli, the leading authority of his time, whose pride refused to let
him investigate Mendel whom he judged a semi-amateur because he
regarded as impossible the very core of Mendel’s discovery. He was
wrong as history recorded and though Mendel received posthumous
recognition for the law he discovered, he is now considered the father
of modern genetics and Nageli, a footnote.

Many years later we have
a similar problem. Unbeknownst to the highest ranking scholars, the
universities have been handing along from generation to generation
conceptions, not verified knowledge, that will be exploded once certain
undeniable relations are perceived and pointed out to man’s common
sense. Down through history, there has always been this skepticism
before certain events were proven true. Who believed the first
astronomer when he predicted an eclipse or Einstein when he revealed
the potential of atomic energy? It is only natural to be skeptical, but
this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific
miracle.

Originally Posted by liminus

If I come up with an idea and people point out problems, I (try to) take criticisms on board and adjust my idea accordingly. I would certainly never claim to have an "undeniable" idea or any kind of final truth. The reason for this is that every single idea in human history has been shown to be incomplete or problematic. To keep within the bounds of what I know best (physics), there are problems with both quantum mechanics and relativity, even though these theories are mind-blowingly awesome at describing the universe with ridiculous, almost unbelievable precision.

But this law of our nature is immutable. That's why I can state, with confidence, that this is a genuine discovery.

Originally Posted by liminus

Unfortunately the problems with Lessans' ideas of sight are not problems that intersect with other extant problems. They are problems that intersect with areas of science where there are no problems. We already know how light and sight work. There is no more testing to be done. There is no ambiguity. Indeed, if Lessans' "model" of sight were correct, it would destroy the theory of electromagnetism. Not just alter it, not just revise it, but destroy it.

How could it do that?

Originally Posted by liminus

We already know that the theory of electromagnetism cannot be destroyed. It is incomplete and will need revision in the future, but the kind of total rewriting your ideas would demand is just out of the question. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you just don't (you can't possibly) have a clue of how wrong his sight "model" is, or you would have said so to him yourself.

I'm still not sure how it destroys electromagnetism.

It still hurts that people are not taking this discovery seriously. When I leave here I'm going to create my own website so I can avoid the vitriol and expound on Chapter One and Two (I never was able to do this after all these pages), and maybe have a fighting chance to show where this knowledge is undeniable and can accomplish what was never before possible; a world of peace and brotherhood between all men.

Originally Posted by liminus

OK I'm going to go back to skepticism again. Imagine you were one of us; you'd never heard of Lessans or any of this stuff. You must, surely, be aware of all the various attempts by humans in history to accomplish the audacious utopia of which you speak. Content aside, the intent is nothing new. Every previous attempt has failed. Every attempt at utopia has been found to be flawed and/or misguided and/or wishful thinking and/or based on sheer ignorance. Are you genuinely surprised you are met with skepticism?

I'm not surprised, but I was hoping that people would have read the book the way it was meant to be read. This particular forum was merciless when it came to attacking Lessans' character and knowledge. That was harder to take than people attacking me.

Originally Posted by liminus

Especially when Lessans was just clearly utterly ignorant of the physics of light but you insist that all of his claims must be perfectly correct. Seriously Janis, can you not hear the preacher in yourself?

I told people that there is an emotional connection to this man, but that doesn't mean he was wrong and that I'm no different than a fundie. I said many times that he came to the knowledge of efferent vision indirectly. It was his understanding of our relationship to the external world that led him to make this claim.

We already spent hundreds of pages on the senses, and got nowhere, so I really don't want to repeat that again.

Originally Posted by liminus

Well, that's all I'm interested in. I'm interested in it, not because I care two fucks either way whether Lessans' ideas on free will etc were correct, but because I know, with a certainty that I don't think even you can imagine, that this particular aspect of his concept is wrong, and easily demonstrably so. Indeed it is demonstrated to be wrong by billions of informal experiments carried out every day by humans, in the fields of optics, astronomy, cosmology, electronics and magnetism and high-energy physics, let alone opthalmology and general medecine and surgery.

You're gonna have to help me here because I truly don't see how it could contradict all of these fields. Obviously, the success of technology in these fields is real, and you can't argue with success. I just don't think it does all that. What it tells us is that we are not seeing the past. We live, see, and die in the present.

Originally Posted by liminus

I'm not a philosophically minded guy and in fact I reject the possibility, utility and indeed desirability of anything describable as "utopia". I would fight against it if it came, for reasons too extended to go into now.

How could you fight against something that isn't fighting you? Think about it. There is no force involved in this. War is just going to stop because there will be no need for it.

Originally Posted by liminist

I am an empiricist, a rationalist, and I would absolutely love to free your mind from the chains that Lessans' work has cast around it. Physics is a beautiful, almost spiritual (although I hate that word) science and you are missing out on a major part of the human experience by denying it, and you are denying all of it by sticking to Lessans' "model" of sight, although you do not understand why because you simply do not know enough about the subject, as is clear from your writing.

He never really used the word utopia. That sounds boring and too perfect. He is just showing that there is a way to prevent people from desiring to strike a first blow. In other words, if you don't strike me, then I won't have to make a choice between striking you back or turning the other cheek.

I realized that no one will entertain the possibility that the eyes are efferent unless more empirical testing is done.

Originally Posted by liminus

We don't need to do this, Janis. There has never been a test and there never will be, to distinguish between afferent and efferent vision. The reason for this is because we don't need to.

We know how light manifests itself as energy packets or quanta.
We know how fast light travels.
We know how photons are both emitted and absorbed by matter.
We also know that photons are the force-carrier particle for the electromagnetic force, a theory which underpins virtually all modern technology and could never have been formulated were Lessan's ideas correct
We know how the eye's lens focuses light.
We know how the receptors of the retina are stimulated by photons.
We know how that stimulation effects signals sent down neural pathways.
We know how those neural pathways lead to the visual cortex.

Everything you're saying is absolutely correct, and I don't see where efferent vision negates any of these facts. Stimulating a neural pathway leading to the visual cortex does not prove that the image is created in the cortex. That's where the snag is.

Originally Posted by liminus

It's hard to think of a good analogy, but it's like you are arguing that we don't really breathe, or that we don't really reproduce. It's that fundamental.

That's because this model has never been challenged. It's taken for granted that we see the past from lightwaves that have travelled long distances.

The afferent model of sight states that lightwaves are being transduced into electro-chemical signals that then go to the brain to be interpreted. That's a fallacy if Lessans is correct.

Originally Posted by liminus

It is correct and we know it is correct. I can show you how we know that if you are willing to listen.

Sure.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't see a red light traveling toward me first, and then the blue light, which would definitely be a breach of physics.

Originally Posted by liminus

If you continue to see the red light in my example after the light switches to blue, then you cannot be seeing in real time. It really is that simple. Think about it.

Right. We would see the blue light. I corrected myself.

I hope you stick around because we need new blood in here if this thread is to continue in any positive direction.

Originally Posted by liminus

I'm only interested in the light/sight business I'm afraid as like I said, I am uninterested in and indeed opposed to, concepts of "utopia". Neverthless I look forward to any productive dialogue we may have in the future.

Thanks.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem here is that no one has read the book.

Do you ever tire of lying? If no one read the book, derper, then how could so many of us have discussed huge passages of it from first to last?

How could it do that?

Aren't you precious?

Did you read The Lone Ranger's essay yet? Hmm?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm still not sure how it destroys electromagnetism.

[Doctor X]

I am disappointed that you will not consider the possibility that gravity does not exist. . . .

--J.D.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't like when people come off so cock sure of themselves...

How then can you possibly like anything in Lessans' book or in your own posts. Both are epitomes of cock sureness.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

I merely remind creationists of whatever stripe that the Earth is not, unfortunately, flat.

Doctor X, you are just plain wrong about this. This is the point that is in contention. If you travel far enough in any direction you will fall off the edge of the earth, if it is true that the earth is flat. This is an undeniable truth even if more empirical testing is needed. The jury is still out and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You fail to understand that he came to this finding indirectly. He didn't have to be a biology or physics expert to know that his observations were correct.

Once again you demonstrate a remarkable inability to distinguish between criticism directed at you and criticism directed at Lessans. We were talking about your lack of qualifications with regard to judging what science is, or is not, relevant to Lessans' claims. I didn't say anything about Lessans' expertise or qualifications to make judgements about such relevance. Please try to pay attention.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This analogy is shortsighted. I am not assuring anyone in the face of contradictory evidence. I am extending knowledge that is verifiable in every way.

So, do you want the car or not?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is difficult to set up a test, but not impossible. I'm just not sure how to proceed because isolating all the variables is not an easy thing to do in our present environment.

Just repeating this statement does not make it true now does it. Perhaps you should try shouting at your monitor or using bold or larger fonts. Maybe that will suddenly magically make it true.

The only real proof is if this knowledge works, and it does, but people are absolutely stuck on the evidence. They won't even read any further. After all this time we never once got into the real meat of his first discovery.

Funny stuff. So let me get this straight people wont believe superstitious nonsense if they keep getting hung up on annoyances like evidence and tangible proofs.

You wonder why no one believes you? I think its pretty obvious why, you're not giving anyone a reason too. Listen to me! I alone know the truth is not a particularly convincing argument. 10,000 years of religious wars and dogmatic wrangling have shown that. Faith is no substitute for reason and science.

[Sidhe]

This analogy is shortsighted. I am not assuring anyone in the face of contradictory evidence. I am extending knowledge that is verifiable in every way.

Name some?

See that's the problem isn't it you keep saying its verifiable but you have no idea how to do it. That's a bit of a flaw and I'm sure Karl Popper would of slapped you in the head by now and said d'ah! Evidence or it didn't happen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't like when people come off so cock sure of themselves...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How then can you possibly like anything in Lessans' book or in your own posts. Both are epitomes of cock sureness.

Yes, they are.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

I merely remind creationists of whatever stripe that the Earth is not, unfortunately, flat.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Doctor X, you are just plain wrong about this. This is the point that is in contention. If you travel far enough in any direction you will fall off the edge of the earth, if it is true that the earth is flat. This is an undeniable truth even if more empirical testing is needed. The jury is still out and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

You can't stop comparing apples to oranges, can you? There is no relationship between creationists and this knowledge.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You fail to understand that he came to this finding indirectly. He didn't have to be a biology or physics expert to know that his observations were correct.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Once again you demonstrate a remarkable inability to distinguish between criticism directed at you and criticism directed at Lessans. We were talking about your lack of qualifications with regard to judging what science is, or is not, relevant to Lessans' claims. I didn't say anything about Lessans' expertise or qualifications to make judgements about such relevance. Please try to pay attention.

When you criticize my qualifications, you are also criticizing his qualifications. You know he was not a physicist, so you are judging him as someone who couldn't possibly be qualified to know anything about light and sight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This analogy is shortsighted. I am not assuring anyone in the face of contradictory evidence. I am extending knowledge that is verifiable in every way.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, do you want the car or not?

No, because the evidence is clear that the car is not in good shape.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know he's right. I'm saying that we need more empirical evidence for your sake, not mine. This is not an assertion or just some random idea pulled out of a hat. Repeating this statement does not make it true, but that's not what this knowledge is dependent on.

The only real proof is if this knowledge works, and it does, but people are absolutely stuck on the evidence. They won't even read any further. After all this time we never once got into the real meat of his first discovery.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Funny stuff. So let me get this straight people wont believe superstitious nonsense if they keep getting hung up on annoyances like evidence and tangible proofs.

You wonder why no one believes you? I think its pretty obvious why, you're not giving anyone a reason too. Listen to me! I alone know the truth is not a particularly convincing argument. 10,000 years of religious wars and dogmatic wrangling have shown that. Faith is no substitute for reason and science.

I agree with you. The problem here is that his observations were not obvious to the average person, but that does not disqualify them as being valid. The fact that I can't easily set up a tangible proof (which doesn't mean it can't be done) shouldn't stop people from being open minded to the possibility of a genuine scientific discovery.

[Sidhe]

I agree with you. The problem here is that his observations were not obvious to the average person, but that does not disqualify them as being valid. The fact that I can't easily set up a tangible proof (but that doesn't mean it can't be done) shouldn't stop people from being open minded to the possibility that he could be right.

if you personally can't do it and neither can anyone else even remotely fathom how to do it, then it can't be done.

You saying it can be done without doing it is pointless. Prove it or don't and be told your pet theory is worthless. You may not like the way it works but that is the way it works.

[Doctor X]

And yet sight is not efferent.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Name some?

See that's the problem isn't it you keep saying its verifiable but you have no idea how to do it. That's a bit of a flaw and I'm sure Karl Popper would of slapped you in the head by now and said d'ah! Evidence or it didn't happen.

The evidence is so clear to me. For example, he explains his observations regarding determinism, yet no one will listen. Like I said, I couldn't get past page 45. I think a lot of people are afraid of the idea that man's will is definitely not free. Once this knowledge is understood, it's very easy to extend this new understanding into every area of human relations. But you can't open the book and read excerpts without understanding the core of the discovery. That's what David and Stephen did with no regard for the author, who warned people not to do this, or it would sound like a fairy tale.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

if you personally can't do it and neither can anyone else even remotely fathom how to do it, then it can't be done.

You saying it can be done without doing it is pointless. Prove it or don't and be told your pet theory is worthless. You may not like the way it works but that is the way it works.

It's not a pet theory Sidhe. Aren't you at all curious why he says man's will is not free? Don't you want to understand even the first thing about these principles? To say it's a pet theory is inaccurate. Epistemology does allow for observation and reason, which these principles are based on as a means of determining truth.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a pet theory Sidhe. Aren't you at all curious why he says man's will is not free? Don't you want to understand even the first thing about these principles? To say it's a pet theory is inaccurate. Epistemology does allow for observation and reason, which these principles are based on as a means of determining truth.

I prefer my philosophy with a touch more reality thanks. As far as I have read there may or may not be free will but it depends much on how you define free and will and few people can even agree to that.

I think though if your father had really answered the age old question it would of got much more recognition, in fact it would of been a massive event that would of probably made the national news. With that in mind I would read it, but I really sincerely doubt I am going to be convinced by it given what has been said so far.

Does it worry me that we might not have free will? Does it worry you?

As far as I am concerned the question is unanswerable and probably always will be, so I just proceed as if I am free because the illusion or not is good enough for me. Would I care if I was an automaton that simply plods on a preset predetermined course 'til the day I die, probably, but then I don't think I am ever going to be aware of this on any reasonable level so why worry.