A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not purposely avoided any questions. I have not weaseled or dissembled anything.

You most certainly have. Though given your mental illness and memory problems, it's quite possible that you believe otherwise. Would you like me to bump the questions you have previously purposefully avoided? Would you like me to quote you purposefully avoiding them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to keep talking about light traveling because in efferent vision, light is a condition of sight, whereas the second you talk about time, you are implying that light is the cause of sight. There is no point in continuing to discuss this topic until there is more empirical testing. Until then it's a waste of time to talk about this further.

You know you are wrong, and that's why you refuse to discuss it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have always taking people's responses seriously, at least the ones that are relevant.

No, you haven't. "There must be something else going on there" is not taking a problem seriously.


Why are you still here?


You are mentally ill, Peacegirl. Seriously, you really are. You should be seeking help instead of feeding your illness.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not purposely avoided any questions. I have not weaseled or dissembled anything.

Oh, you haven't avoided any questions? What about the question reproduced below?

Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!






You know, I'm not sure I ever realized that FF has two "lols", one lower case and one upper case. See? You can learn something in a peacegirl thread!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe it's a warning that a supernova is about to occur so what we are seeing is the actual explosion.

So ... you're saying that the neutrino burst occurs hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years before the star explodes? And, by an amazing coincidence, the neutrino burst and the star's eventual explosion are always perfectly timed, so that no matter how far away from us the star happens to be, the neutrino burst and the visible explosion are roughly coincident?

Note that this would therefore necessarily mean that the neutrino burst and the visible explosion would not be coincident for observers on hypothetical planets in other solar systems. This is necessarily true, because these hypothetical observers would be different distances from the supernovae than we are, and would therefore receive the neutrinos at different times than we do. And we're not talking about a difference of a few hours -- we're talking about a difference of several decades in most cases, if not centuries or millennia.


So what is it that's so special about the Earth that the entire Universe is actively conspiring to create the false impression that we see in delayed time, constrained by the speed of light?

Does God hate physicists and astronomers or something?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So ... you're saying that the neutrino burst occurs hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years before the star explodes? And, by an amazing coincidence, the neutrino burst and the star's eventual explosion are always perfectly timed, so that no matter how far away from us the star happens to be, the neutrino burst and the visible explosion are roughly coincident?

Note that this would therefore necessarily mean that the neutrino burst and the visible explosion would not be coincident for observers on hypothetical planets in other solar systems. This is necessarily true, because these hypothetical observers would be different distances from the supernovae than we are, and would therefore receive the neutrinos at different times than we do. And we're not talking about a difference of a few hours -- we're talking about a difference of several decades in most cases, if not centuries or millennia.


So what is it that's so special about the Earth that the entire Universe is actively conspiring to create the false impression that we see in delayed time, constrained by the speed of light?

Does God hate physicists and astronomers or something?

She will never address this problem (beyond a vague "Maybe something else is going on there"). But she will forget that this counter has been made, only to later repeat the same silly response which it refutes.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe it's a warning that a supernova is about to occur so what we are seeing is the actual explosion.

Go read TLR's comment on this. You are so wedded to your beliefs that you are now proposing the universe is precisely arranged so as to fool us (and only us!) into thinking we see in delayed time.

Everything about the way the world works makes it look like we see using light, and so in 'delayed time'. There is no exception here. You have no reason to think otherwise, except pure faith in your Dad's say so. And to preserve this notion, you are making up convoluted, twisted conspiracy theories on (literally!) cosmic scales.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Go read TLR's comment on this. You are so wedded to your beliefs that you are now proposing the universe is precisely arranged so as to fool us (and only us!) into thinking we see in delayed time.

Everything about the way the world works makes it look like we see using light, and so in 'delayed time'. There is no exception here. You have no reason to think otherwise, except pure faith in your Dad's say so. And to preserve this notion, you are making up convoluted, twisted conspiracy theories on (literally!) cosmic scales.

Dragar, that's not what I'm doing. I do believe Lessans was right not because he was my father, but because I don't believe the brain works as a sense organ. This has more to do with how the brain and eyes work than with light, yet everyone is only focusing on how light works.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You most certainly have. Though given your mental illness and memory problems, it's quite possible that you believe otherwise. Would you like me to bump the questions you have previously purposefully avoided? Would you like me to quote you purposefully avoiding them?

I have not purposely avoided questions that are RELEVANT. You are failing to offer anything relevant. You keep repeating the same question about photons bouncing and traveling, which is an afferent premise. The second you go out of the starting gate with this as a first premise, the conclusion will always support the existing model.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to keep talking about light traveling because in efferent vision, light is a condition of sight, whereas the second you talk about time, you are implying that light is the cause of sight. There is no point in continuing to discuss this topic until there is more empirical testing. Until then it's a waste of time to talk about this further.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You know you are wrong, and that's why you refuse to discuss it.

I don't believe Lessans was wrong. If the eyes work the way Lessns' describes, there is a 180 degree change in how we see the world. But you are trying to make my worldview fit into yours, and it won't work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have always taking people's responses seriously, at least the ones that are relevant.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you haven't. "There must be something else going on there" is not taking a problem seriously.

I have said many times that I am more interested in how the brain and eyes work, which will require empirical testing. That's the only way Lessans will be vindicated.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you still here?

You are mentally ill, Peacegirl. Seriously, you really are. You should be seeking help instead of feeding your illness.

I give you a little rope, and you hang yourself. We're done.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...because I don't believe the brain works as a sense organ.

Why not? In order to preserve this belief, you are having to make up conspiracies operating across the entire cosmos. And you only have this belief because Lessans told you it was true.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, that's not what I'm doing. I do believe Lessans was right not because he was my father, but because I don't believe the brain works as a sense organ. This has more to do with how the brain and eyes work than with light, yet everyone is only focusing on how light works.

We focus on the light as it's the simplest way of showing that (some of) your father's theories are wrong.

If your father had said that no mammals can fly, then we'd point out that bats are mammals, and that they fly.

You might then say that you're not interested in bats, and that you just want to discuss your father's observations about mammals which you believe to be wholly correct. Sorry, that wouldn't wash - the bats counterexample would be sufficient to prove that the observations were (at least partly) wrong.

It's the same with the efferent vision. Your father claimed that we don't see in delayed time, and even went as far as to give astronomical examples concerning the sun and Rigel. We've proved to you, over and over again, that he was definitely wrong about that. We've even explained to you how you can observe for yourself that he was wrong, just using a good pair of binoculars or a small telescope.

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to admit that your father was definitely wrong in some of his claims. Once you've taken that step, then people might be more willing to discuss the remainder of his theories.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So ... you're saying that the neutrino burst occurs hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years before the star explodes? And, by an amazing coincidence, the neutrino burst and the star's eventual explosion are always perfectly timed, so that no matter how far away from us the star happens to be, the neutrino burst and the visible explosion are roughly coincident?

No, I'm not saying that. I was just wondering how do they know that these particles are millions of years old?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Note that this would therefore necessarily mean that the neutrino burst and the visible explosion would not be coincident for observers on hypothetical planets in other solar systems. This is necessarily true, because these hypothetical observers would be different distances from the supernovae than we are, and would therefore receive the neutrinos at different times than we do. And we're not talking about a difference of a few hours -- we're talking about a difference of several decades in most cases, if not centuries or millennia.

The operative word you're using is hypothetical. Obviously, if an observer receives neutrinos at a different time than someone on another planet (in another solar system), distance would come into play. I don't see where this observation would negate Lessans' claims. We're talking theory right now and the only way to solve this issue is through more empirical testing on Earth. I think that's a fair request.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So what is it that's so special about the Earth that the entire Universe is actively conspiring to create the false impression that we see in delayed time, constrained by the speed of light?

Does God hate physicists and astronomers or something?

Not at all Lone Ranger, but unintentional errors can be made. It's rare, but it can happen. Once a premise is accepted as fact, it's very easy for everything to fit that premise. That's why you can't say that Lessans' claims have been tested, because every empirical test where the eyes are concerned has been based on the assumption that they are a sense organ.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

We focus on the light as it's the simplest way of showing that (some of) your father's theories are wrong.

But this is not how he came to his conclusions. As long as people focus on light, and not the brain, they are going to miss the proof.

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

If your father had said that no mammals can fly, then we'd point out that bats are mammals, and that they fly.

You might then say that you're not interested in bats, and that you just want to discuss your father's observations about mammals which you believe to be wholly correct. Sorry, that wouldn't wash - the bats counterexample would be sufficient to prove that the observations were (at least partly) wrong.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to narrow this down to the brain and eyes, which is a huge field in itself. If we can establish that the brain does, in fact, work the way Lessans described, then the conclusions about what we are seeing (whether the past or present) need to be rethought.

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

It's the same with the efferent vision. Your father claimed that we don't see in delayed time, and even went as far as to give astronomical examples concerning the sun and Rigel. We've proved to you, over and over again, that he was definitely wrong about that. We've even explained to you how you can observe for yourself that he was wrong, just using a good pair of binoculars or a small telescope.

There is no proof that we are interpreting images from light itself. So far no one has absolute proof that when an event (that consists of material substance) is gone, that the image of that event will still be seen millions of years later (e.g. Columbus discovering America).

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to admit that your father was definitely wrong in some of his claims. Once you've taken that step, then people might be more willing to discuss the remainder of his theories.

I can't do that. I told people that it's okay not to believe him. I just hope that other people find his first discovery interesting because no one has been at all curious about the most important discovery of all. Since day one, all they have said is that it's a modal fallacy and circular reason, and left it at that. This is completely wrong, and yet the same people have hijacked this thread where either people are afraid to come forward, or they don't even know what this thread is about because it's been so diluted from so many garbage posts.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe it's a warning that a supernova is about to occur so what we are seeing is the actual explosion.

What does that even mean?

If Lessans was correct and we see in real time, with no light travel delay, we would always, always see the supernova quite some time (decades at least) before we detected the neutrinos...without exception.

Neutrinos travel slightly under the speed of light, so they would be subject to a travel delay while seeing the supernova would happen without the delay.

This is not the case.

[LadyShea]

Let me ask you this. If only the visible spectrum is subject to real time seeing, would that necessarily mean that we could see something before we are able to detect the non-visible light? If only the brain and eyes are efferent, then the light speed delay would apply to that light the brain can't see through the eyes.

For example another supernova. If Lessans was correct and your model based on his idea was valid, we would see the supernova immediately, but we would not be able to detect the ultraviolet, infrared, gamma rays, etc. until they traveled to our detectors, correct?

That would be a great way to determine distance, a simple formula using the time we see something and the time the non-visible electromagnetic radiation reached us.

Does this happen though? Nope.

[LadyShea]

because I don't believe the brain works as a sense organ

The brain is the sense organ in Lessans model. The brain looks out the eyes as windows. The brain is doing the visual sensing.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The brain is the sense organ in Lessans model. The brain looks out the eyes as windows. The brain is doing the visual sensing.

Quite correct.

The brain most-definitely is not a sense organ in the standard model. The eyes are; the olfactory epithelium is; the ears are. The brain is not.

It is Lessans' claims that require the brain to be a sense organ, not those of the standard model.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not purposely avoided questions that are RELEVANT.

Yes you have. That is exactly what you have done.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep repeating the same question about photons bouncing and traveling, which is an afferent premise.

You are wrong. That there are photons bouncing and traveling is what YOU agreed to. (What do you imagine photons do if they don't travel around and bounce off things?)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes work the way Lessans' describes...

They don't. The observable evidence is not compatible with his claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are trying to make my worldview fit into yours, and it won't work.

Wrong. All I've ever done is ask you to develop the implications of YOUR own account. I never introduced any assumptions that you did not agree to. Yet you keep falsely accusing me of introducing afferent premises when I am doing no such thing.

You've been at this for years with thousands of posts, and yet you still have no consistent account of even the most basic behavior of photons for real time photography. When pressed on it, all you do is weasel, lie, and evade.


You are mentally ill, Peacegirl. Seriously, you really are. You should be seeking help instead of feeding your illness.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are trying to make my worldview fit into yours, and it won't work.

What you are trying to do, and some have tried to help you, is to fit Your's and Lessans ideas about vision into the observed, tested, and verified theory of sight and vision and that is what doesn't fit. Calling it a 'worldview' is just a bit of self-aggrandizing on your part. Your accusations that scientists are biased in their intrepretation of experimental data is just you tilting at windmills, claiming conspiricies where there are none.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why not? In order to preserve this belief, you are having to make up conspiracies operating across the entire cosmos. And you only have this belief because Lessans told you it was true.

That is not true Dragar. You give me no credit and that's why you won't even consider the possibility that science is wrong. You put me in a category of mentally ill, like NA. It's a tactical diversion and it's working. Do you see the comparison between Spacemonkey's responses and NA's? It's almost identical. This could be an experiment on how people unconsciously model other people's behavior.

[LadyShea]

I just hope that other people find his first discovery interesting because no one has been at all curious about the most important discovery of all. Since day one, all they have said is that it's a modal fallacy and circular reason, and left it at that. This is completely wrong

You were absolutely unable to show that the reasoning was not fallacious or circular. All you did was assert "you're wrong" just as you did here.

Demonstrating a single premise as valid has escaped your capabilities for how many years now? You still can't do it! You still cannot show why his free will premise does not commit the modal fallacy which is very clearly appears to do.

Quit weaseling, for once! Leave here with a single direct, rational point made. Refute the charge of modal fallacy for Lessans free will idea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quite correct.

The brain most-definitely is not a sense organ in the standard model. The eyes are; the olfactory epithelium is; the ears are. The brain is not.

It is Lessans' claims that require the brain to be a sense organ, not those of the standard model.

Wrong. You are splitting hairs to make it appear that there is something wrong with Lessans' reasoning. It's all too clear to me. No matter how you word it, the eyes and brain work differently than the ears and the brain, or taste and the brain, or smell and the brain, or touch and the brain, so please don't use a technicality in his wording to make it appear that he is wrong, which is what you doing.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true Dragar. You give me no credit and that's why you won't even consider the possibility that science is wrong. You put me in a category of mentally ill, like NA. It's a tactical diversion and it's working. Do you see the comparison between Spacemonkey's responses and NA's? It's almost identical. This could be an experiment on how people unconsciously model other people's behavior.

You haven't earned any credit. The best you can do is assert "you're wrong", "something else must be going on", "It needs to be rethought".

What exactly are we supposed to give you credit for doing or thinking on your own?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You were absolutely unable to show that the reasoning was not fallacious or circular. All you did was assert "you're wrong" just as you did here.

Demonstrating a single premise as valid has escaped your capabilities for how many years now? You still can't do it! You still cannot show why his free will premise does not commit the modal fallacy which is very clearly appears to do.

According to who? I could talk blue in the face to someone who is going to refute anything I say because he either doesn't understand what I'm saying, or will deny what he doesn't want to be true. I'm not sure what category you fit in, but either way, this does not make Lessans the bad guy here. You put yourself on such a pedestal LadyShea, that you can't or won't allow yourself to even listen. You just assume like Spacemonkey. You are not the person I want to talk to, not because you don't have the capacity for understanding, but because your mind is made up that he is wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quit weaseling, for once! Leave here with a single direct, rational point made. Refute the charge of modal fallacy for Lessans free will idea.

Please stop attributing everything that has gone wrong in here to my weaseling. I have never ever weaseled. Can't you think of something else to find fault with than this? You can't, which is why you keep resorting to this ridiculous accusation.

[LadyShea]

What did you mean when you said "I don't believe the brain works as a sense organ "?

Lessans never said the brain isn't a sense organ, he said the eyes aren't.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to who? I could talk blue in the face to someone who is going to refute anything I say because he either doesn't understand what I'm saying, or will deny what he doesn't want to be true. I'm not sure what category you fit in, but either way, this does not make Lessans the bad guy here. You put yourself on such a pedestal LadyShea, that you can't or won't allow yourself to even listen. You just assume like Spacemonkey. You are not the person I want to talk to, not because you don't have the capacity for understanding, but because your mind is made up that he is wrong.

says blah blah blah. Address it or get the fuck out, seriously

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quit weaseling, for once! Leave here with a single direct, rational point made. Refute the charge of modal fallacy for Lessans free will idea.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Shut up already abourt weaseling. I have never weaseled. Can't you think of something else to criticize me on than this? You can't which is why you keep resorting to this ridiculous accusation.

You are weaseling right now! You have refused to address the clearly laid out modal fallacy charge for almost a year and are still refusing to address it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You haven't earned any credit. The best you can do is assert "you're wrong", "something else must be going on", "It needs to be rethought".

What exactly are we supposed to give you credit for doing or thinking on your own?

Again, this thread is going nowhere. We are not discussing the actual meat of the discovery. All I am getting are retorts that mean absolutely nothing as far as the truth is concerned. I don't have to prove anything to you LadyShea if you don't meet me halfway, and you have done nothing of the sort.