A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is so far from being irrational, I don't even know how to respond.

It's not irrational and unreasonable to tell 6 billion people "Just turn off your brain and believe it and accept it and go with it, and it will work. I promise!" and expect them to actually do it? Really?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Tell me, what is the risk compared to what we have now?

Pascal's Wager is a religious argument, not a scientific or mathematical one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your definition is completely idiosyncratic and created specifically to allow you to maintain your preconceived notion, your definition is NOT meant to describe reality.

It is very much meant to describe reality, but I understand the importance of empiricism. So let empirical testing do its work without coming to premature conclusions. That's all I'm asking. I am not hiding in a closet espousing something that can't be tested.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In what version of reality is color, size, shape, distance, movement, speed, etc. (in other words all visual data) NOT information?

In what reality is the existence of measurable, objective separation and distance between two things not expressible as "Two points; A and B"?

If you don't get your mind off of A leading to B due to light, you will argue with me until your argument becomes absolutely useless. Stop it LadyShea. Let's move on to something that may be more provable. All of Lessans' claims can be proved through empiricism, but it will take a thorough analysis to make sure the testing is not falsified due to do poor controls. If this can't be done, science will automatically win by default.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Helping me personally? This has nothing to do with me LadyShea. You would be helping the world, not me.

I would be helping you spread the word to help the world. Any rational person would be doing something, no matter how small, if they truly believed this to be the answer to world peace.

That your own family is apparently keeping busy while waiting around for you to die to do that something is not a very good endorsement for the book, or for your presentation of the principles.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all I'm asking. I am not hiding in a closet espousing something that can't be tested.

No empirical test can be set up to test whatever you are talking about if we don't even have the same definitions for the things we are trying to test.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. In what version of reality is color, size, shape, distance, movement, speed, etc. (in other words all visual data) NOT information?

2. In what reality is the existence of measurable, objective separation and distance between two things not expressible as "Two points; A and B"?

3. In what reality is something from point A being acquired at point B not a "transfer"?

If you don't get your mind off of A leading to B due to light, you will argue with me until your argument becomes absolutely useless.

I didn't say anything at all about light. Read it again and answer each question. It's the only way to find a common language since regular old definitions don't seem to work for you....and I added a third question.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop it LadyShea. Let's move on to something that may be more provable.

I am not running an empirical test, I am trying to figure out what language you are using. Since you won't accept the standard English definitions, let's try your criteria of "description of reality".

Here's my argument you need to refute once we agree on definitions

When you and Lessans claimed vision is instantaneous, you claimed information transfer occurs faster than the speed of light.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are lying Vivisectus. I never said babies are blind. They have the apparatus but the brain needs stimulation in order to focus. And I never said cameras show a different picture. They show the same picture but the reasons that they show the same picture are not due to the reasons you think.

Ah, but you most-certainly have claimed that newborns cannot see. You've done so on quite a few occasions.

And have you forgotten how you spent pages insisting that because humans see directly but cameras do not, we should be able to see things that we cannot photograph? You spent pages claiming that we would not be able to photograph things like supernovae until their light reached us, even though we would be able to see them as soon as they occurred.

When it was pointed out to you that we have photographed supernovae within minutes of them first becoming visible to the eye, you claimed that this simply means that the supernovae were much closer to us than was thought to be the case. As if a supernova could possibly be only a few light-minutes distant (which would put it well within our Solar System). And as if a supernova that was so close wouldn't destroy all life on Earth when it went off.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is true that only if these principles were put into effect would Lessans be convincing. What have you shown that we don't already know?

I'm only telling you what you don't want to hear, peacegirl. Lessans book is not compelling enough to convince the world to change, and the changes in the book are too significant for people to think it's a harmless change. No one is just going to try Lessans ideas.

Asking, "What's the risk?" is just a variant on the Pascal's Wager-type argument you keep trotting out. It's a poor argument, and you probably should stop it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I distinctly remember linking to a detailed study into newborn sight by the way. Did you not read it so that you could continue to deny that newborns can see? The result was, perplexedly enough, that they seem to be less well able to see yellow. Why yellow? We do not yet know, but I am sure someone will try to find out.

They most certainly can see, so at least on this point Lessans was wrong, despite all his reading and analyzing. And yet you just denied it again here:

This is one of the cases were the empirical tests ARE in, and they show that Lessans was wrong.

Cue dodging having to admit this in 1... 2... 3...

It is not proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that dogs can recognize people on photographs by being trained to push a lever. This is not proof even if they happen to push a lever more times in a picture with their owner than not.
------------------
Color vision is probably immature at birth. Color discrimination is learned early, starting with yellow and ending with blue. By four months, babies can see all colors well and often prefer red.

TLC Family "The Newborn\'s Five Senses"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm only telling you what you don't want to hear, peacegirl. Lessans book is not compelling enough to convince the world to change, and the changes in the book are too significant for people to think it's a harmless change. No one is just going to try Lessans ideas.

Asking, "What's the risk?" is just a variant on the Pascal's Wager-type argument you keep trotting out. It's a poor argument, and you probably should stop it.

I cannot keep defending him in lieu of everyone's negative preconceived ideas. They will find a way to compare him to a religious fundie and in so doing are hurting themselves. When I say "what's the risk", what other choice do I have? No one will carefully study the book so the only other way is to do empirical testing. When I say what's the risk, I am not putting up a wager for people to believe in something that cannot be proven. I am saying what's the risk of actually testing his proposition to determine the validity of his proposition.

[LadyShea]

It is not proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that dogs can recognize people on photographs by being trained to push a lever. This is not proof even if they happen to push a lever more times in a picture with their owner than not.

Nobody said they did push a lever. I gave several possibilities and you grabbed that one, for some reason. The abstract of that ONE study does not detail the method used. You would have to get the entire journal article to find out what they did do.

Also, there are many, many more studies I am unaware of, that are unavailable online, or that are places I don't know where to look

As I said here

I gave links to abstracts/summaries and or news stories about various published studies. These do not include the data found in the full articles/papers and the full articles are only available in scholarly journals. I am not paying for the full articles, which you probably wouldn't understand even if you didn't ignore it. You have no basis on which to base a reliability assessment because you didn't see anything but summaries.

Additionally for every link I posted there are many hundreds of studies and papers I didn't find or link to or know about.

If you are truly interested, you need to visit a University library and/or scour the appropriate various journals for likely papers and either pay for them or request a copy for review.

Your son, as a doctor or medical student, probably has a subscription that allows him to get full articles easily and for free. Just send him a citation, or tell him what you are looking for.

Also, since when is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" a scientific, rather legal, determination? Hint: it's not. That phrase has no place in science. Why is proof and perfection required in a discussion of science at all?

[LadyShea]

I am saying what's the risk of actually testing his proposition to determine the validity of his proposition.

Spending valuable research time and difficult to acquire research funds because some dude claims to have made "observations" is not something scientists do. They risk that time and money researching possible crazy.

[LadyShea]

Delete duplicate

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one will carefully study the book so the only other way is to do empirical testing. When I say what's the risk, I am not putting up a wager for people to believe in something that cannot be proven. I am saying what's the risk of actually testing his proposition to determine the validity of his proposition.

You say this as if those tests haven't been done.

They have.

And if you'd take the time to visit a decent library and do some very basic research, as people have been begging you to do for several hundred pages now, you'd know this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Ah, but you most-certainly have claimed that newborns cannot see. You've done so on quite a few occasions.

I said that they can't see because they can't focus. When Lessans said sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him, he didn't mean newborns were blind.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And have you forgotten how you spent pages insisting that because humans see directly but cameras do not, we should be able to see things that we cannot photograph? You spent pages claiming that we would not be able to photograph things like supernovae until their light reached us, even though we would be able to see them as soon as they occurred.

I was incorrect. You have to remember that I am trying to extend these principles to show you that efferent vision is not a crazy notion, but I have not thought about all these implications. So you'll have to forgive me for not getting it perfectly correct the first time around.

When it was pointed out to you that we have photographed supernovae within minutes of them first becoming visible to the eye, you claimed that this simply means that the supernovae were much closer to us than was thought to be the case. As if a supernova could possibly be only a few light-minutes distant (which would put it well within our Solar System). And as if a supernova that was so close wouldn't destroy all life on Earth when it went off.

Seeing an explosion from a distant star is different than seeing photons that have bounced off an object. I can also see fire that has spread because that light is visible as it travels from its source, but to say that I am seeing an image of the past because the light is sending signals to my brain is erroneous. If a supernova is outside of our Solar System, it would remain outside of our Solar System. I never said it would only be a few light minutes distant which would be a disaster. The nearest big galaxy to our Milky Way, the Andromeda galaxy, is two million light-years away. The most distant galaxies we can now see are 10 or 12 billion light-years away.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You say this as if those tests haven't been done.

They have.

And if you'd take the time to visit a decent library and do some very basic research, as people have been begging you to do for several hundred pages now, you'd know this.

This discussion is never going to get anywhere. I don't believe all the tests have been done. The tests that are being used as strong evidence that dogs can recognize photographs of their owners are unreliable.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This discussion is never going to get anywhere. I don't believe all the tests have been done. The tests that are being used as strong evidence that dogs can recognize photographs of their owners are unreliable.

You act as if we haven't tested whether or not sight is efferent, and whether or not we can see in real time.

Those tests have been done, and you can learn more than you could possibly ever want to know about those tests, how they were done, and what they demonstrate if only you were to make a minimal effort. But, of course you won't.

So you're lying, plain and simple, when you claim that there are no conclusive tests of things like whether or not vision is efferent, we can see in real time, newborns can see, etc.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was incorrect. You have to remember that I am trying to extend these principles to show you that efferent vision is not a crazy notion, but I have not thought about all these implications. So you'll have to forgive me for not getting it perfectly correct the first time around.

None of this changes the fact that you were lying when you told Vivisectus that you had never claimed that cameras "see" things differently than does the human eye.

Want me to link you to some of your posts in which you made exactly that claim, just to refresh your memory?


And by the way, you most-certainly did not think through the implications of what you were saying and change your mind because you realized your claim was wrong. Even after people pointed out how utterly absurd your claim was, and how easy it is to prove that it's wrong, you continued to make the claim. And to "justify" it, you made further absurd claims such as that supernovae must really be far closer than we think (like only light minutes distant), rather than admit that Lessans was wrong.

But then you discovered that you'd mis-remembered Lessans' claim, and that even he hadn't said anything as breath-taxingly stupid as that we can see things that we can't photograph. So you instantly changed your claim.

At no time did you think through your position. Far from it: you did what you always do -- you stuck inflexibly to the position of "whatever Lessans says is right; end of thought process." It was simply the case that you had forgotten what Lessans' position was in this instance.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The tests that are being used as strong evidence that dogs can recognize photographs of their owners are unreliable.

Why?

[davidm]

Hey, peacegoil,

Lessans claimed that light was condition of seeing: it has to be present, for people to see. I imagine he had this "eureka" moment when the lights went out in the pool hall and he couldn't see to line up his shot.

Lessans acknowledged that it takes 8.5 minute for the light to arrive on earth from the sun, when the sun is turned on.

Nevertheless, he claimed people on earth would see the sun instantly, when it is turned on, even though the light will not be present, by his own admission, for eight and a half minutes.

Conclusion: Daddy Dumb Ass flatly contradicted himself, but was too thick to notice.

Too bad, so sad.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a supernova is outside of our Solar System, it would remain outside of our Solar System.

Wow! Aren't you astute!

I never said it would only be a few light minutes distant which would be a disaster. The nearest big galaxy to our Milky Way, the Andromeda galaxy, is two million light-years away. The most distant galaxies we can now see are 10 or 12 billion light-years away.

Right, asshat. Which is why we see them now as they were two million years ago, or ten or twelve billion years ago. That's what light years means.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to remember that I am trying to extend these principles to show you that efferent vision is not a crazy notion, but I have not thought about all these implications. So you'll have to forgive me for not getting it perfectly correct the first time around.

First time around? Please at least try to be honest with yourself. Who do you think you're kidding? You've been aware of the problem of cameras (which function afferently with a resulting time delay) vs. eyes (which according to you function efferently with no time delay, yet produce exactly the same images as cameras) for several years now. You've been aware of these complications for YEARS, so if you haven't thought about them it is because you don't WANT to have to think about them.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was incorrect. You have to remember that I am trying to extend these principles to show you that efferent vision is not a crazy notion, but I have not thought about all these implications. So you'll have to forgive me for not getting it perfectly correct the first time around.

So cameras ALSO photograph in real time, as humans see in real time? Ruuully? But then in that case, why can't we see our neighbor until eight and a half minutes pass, after God turns on the sun? The camera is designed to record light. THAT IS ALL IT DOES. Therefore, the light has to be present, for the camera to make a picture.. If the light is present to the camera in real time when God turns on the sun, then, contrary to what your idiot father said, we would necessarily see our neighbor in real time, too. If your neighbor were holding a camera when God turned on the sun, how the fuck would the camera be able to take a picture of the sun in real time, while your neighbor remained invisible? Hmm, peacegirl?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

First time around? Please at least try to be honest with yourself. Who do you think you're kidding? You've been aware of the problem of cameras (which function afferently with a resulting time delay) vs. eyes (which according to you function efferently with no time delay, yet produce exactly the same images as cameras) for several years now. You've been aware of these complications for YEARS, so if you haven't thought about them it is because you don't WANT to have to think about them.

Lying again, peacegirl? So you've been aware of this problem for years, yet claim you didn't think it through until just recently!

Unfortunately you still haven't thought it through very well, I see. See my post above.

According to Lessans, if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see the sun immediately, but not see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes.

Your neighbor is holding a camera when God turns on the sun.

You now have switched your story to say that cameras photograph in real time even as people see in real time.

If cameras photograph in real time, why will you not see your neighbor holding the camera for eight and a half minutes, after God turns on the sun? If the light is at the camera, it's at your neighbor holding the camera too!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Helping me personally? This has nothing to do with me LadyShea. You would be helping the world, not me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I would be helping you spread the word to help the world. Any rational person would be doing something, no matter how small, if they truly believed this to be the answer to world peace.

That your own family is apparently keeping busy while waiting around for you to die to do that something is not a very good endorsement for the book, or for your presentation of the principles.

My family is not waiting around for me to die before they endorse the book. But you can't expect my children to promote the book in any serious way (which is a huge commitment) when they have jobs and families. If the book begins to draw attention, I'm sure they will be supportive. I know my children will pass the book along whenever it's appropriate. You are finding everything but the kitchen sink to invalidate my presentation. Now you are bringing my family into this which is a last ditch effort to discredit me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Lying again, peacegirl? So you've been aware of this problem for years, yet claim you didn't think it through until just recently!

Unfortunately you still haven't thought it through very well, I see. See my post above.

According to Lessans, if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see the sun immediately, but not see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes.

Your neighbor is holding a camera when God turns on the sun.

You now have switched your story to say that cameras photograph in real time even as people see in real time.

If cameras photograph in real time, why will you not see your neighbor holding the camera for eight and a half minutes, after God turns on the sun? If the light is at the camera, it's at your neighbor holding the camera too!

That's why his example was hypothetical, but you conveniently keep bringing this up as if it's the downfall of his credibility. It's not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

First time around? Please at least try to be honest with yourself. Who do you think you're kidding? You've been aware of the problem of cameras (which function afferently with a resulting time delay) vs. eyes (which according to you function efferently with no time delay, yet produce exactly the same images as cameras) for several years now. You've been aware of these complications for YEARS, so if you haven't thought about them it is because you don't WANT to have to think about them.

Spacemonkey, since I've discussed this with you, which was years ago, I've gotten somewhat better at explaining this concept. Some of my interpretations were incorrect, but that doesn't mean efferent vision is incorrect.

I believe that cameras produce the same images as the eyes do because there is no time delay in either case. Cameras are light detectors but the lens of the camera has to be focused on the object or light source (except when the object is not in direct view, in which case the lens is focusing on an image, such as in a mirror)

[LadyShea]

I believe that cameras produce the same images as the eyes do because there is no time delay in either case.

How is it possible for a light detector not to be effected by the speed of light delay?

Also, what about cameras that can detect and create images from electromagnetic radiation that is invisible to the human eye?