A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, since I've discussed this with you, which was years ago, I've gotten somewhat better at explaining this concept.

Lol, no you haven't. You're still making the exact same mistakes, as demonstrated by your performance earlier in this thread.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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)

The image formed by a camera is a direct function of the intensity, wavelengths, and distribution of light at the camera, so the resulting image cannot possibly be a real time image. There is nothing in the camera which can perform any real time 'looking out'. This has all been explained to you before, years before you even discussed it with me.

Your unwavering dedication to Lessans' infallibility is more important to you than honesty. It is even more important to you than getting his 'new world' started.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say "serious way", in fact I specifically said...Any rational person would be doing something, no matter how small, if they truly believed this to be the answer to world peace.

For examples if you were my mom I would have proofread and formatted the book for you (saving you the however much you paid). I would have set you up a blog or website and suggested articles and excerpts. I would have researched various aspects so you could more intelligently present the material. I would have found likely audiences and opportunities via conventions or even podcasts. It would be a frequent topic of dinner conversation and I would offer my ideas and critiques.

Those happen to be my strengths, and none of them would amount to a "serious" commitment. Hell I do stuff like that for my in-laws and friends...my MOM is way above them especially when she is working on something I feel strongly about too.

You have a son who is a doctor, did you even have a basic discussion about the vaccine and modern medicine criticisms found in the book?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the book begins to draw attention, I'm sure they will be supportive.

Yeah big believers in "the most important discovery ever!" always wait around for attention and are then "probably supportive".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Your family is part of the world that you think should accept and implement these principles on a global scale, and it's very pertinent that they are not 100% on board the Lessans train. It's not a last ditch effort to discredit you, it's an informative bit of context.

Seems to me either your family thinks the book is bullshit and just stays busy and avoids the topic to avoid hurting your feelings OR they are incredibly odd and selfish people that have no problem letting their mom flounder around, and spend tons of money, and get all stressed out and don't lift a finger even though they are convinced her efforts will lead to world peace.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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

What tests have been done? The same tests that are used to confirm afferent vision I suppose.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

I haven't found any history of tests that have been done.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

There is a lot of confusion out there as far as tests and what they conclude. For example, this video is the only one I found of an hour old baby and it's suppose to show that the baby is mimicking the father. I don't see it that way. The baby is sticking out its tongue because that's what newborns do.

newborn baby demonstrates her ability to imitate...

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.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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?

It's not necessary. Would you please stop saying I was lying? I was doing no such thing. That is a purposeful act to deceive. You throw that word around inappropriately.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

I said that the light source (the star itself) is visible because it is close enough or bright enough to be seen. This means that most of the stars that are visible by the naked eye are within our galaxy. Factoid: Magellanic clouds are the Milky Way's satellite dwarf galaxy, and you can see those if you venture to the southern hemisphere. The Andromeda Galaxy is the most distant celestial system ever visible to the unaided eye of our galaxy cannot be seen with the naked eye because they are too far away.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

I was trying to understand what Lessans meant when he gave the hypothetical example of God turning on the sun. This has caused so many problems, I think I'm taking it out of the book. Look what it's done to this thread? I never got to talk about his first discovery, which is the most important.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

I didn't forget what his position was. You're using my ability to answer all of the physics questions people are throwing at me as proof that I am not thinking. I am thinking through every question to figure out what other alternative explanation could account for what we are seeing.

[LadyShea]

Better take out the part about Rigel too. It's just as egregious as the sun one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, since I've discussed this with you, which was years ago, I've gotten somewhat better at explaining this concept.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lol, no you haven't. You're still making the exact same mistakes, as demonstrated by your performance earlier in this thread.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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)

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The image formed by a camera is a direct function of the intensity, wavelengths, and distribution of light at the camera, so the resulting image cannot possibly be a real time image. There is nothing in the camera which can perform any real time 'looking out'. This has all been explained to you before, years before you even discussed it with me.

Spacemonkey, it has nothing to do with "looking out". Cameras don't look out because that is a function of the brain, and cameras don't have brains. Cameras create an image from light, but it can't detect an image of, for example, the moon, if the moon is not visible and the camera's lens is not focused on the moon. The resulting reflection is what the camera picks up.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your unwavering dedication to Lessans' infallibility is more important to you than honesty. It is even more important to you than getting his 'new world' started.

Oh really? How so?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Better take out the part about Rigel too. It's just as egregious as the sun one.

No LadyShea, that's an important part of his explanation of what we would actually be seeing.

[LadyShea]

It is also a claim about time and information that directly contradicts Relativity and Causality

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to understand what Lessans meant when he gave the hypothetical example of God turning on the sun. This has caused so many problems, I think I'm taking it out of the book.

No, you're not. You are incapable of doing that. It would be to implicitly acknowledge Lessans' to possibly have been incorrect, and you will never be able to do this.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, it has nothing to do with "looking out". Cameras don't look out because that is a function of the brain, and cameras don't have brains. Cameras create an image from light, but it can't detect an image of, for example, the moon, if the moon is not visible and the camera's lens is not focused on the moon. The resulting reflection is what the camera picks up.

Yes, cameras create an image from light. FROM THE PARTICULAR QUALITIES OF THE LIGHT PRESENT AT THE CAMERA. So the resulting image cannot possibly be a real time image.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? How so?

Because you knew before you even began here that Lessans would become a laughing stock to anyone even remotely familiar with science as soon as readers got to the "eyes are not a sense organ" part. So if you really believed in his first 'discovery', and if getting that message recognized were more important to you than maintaining your own deluded belief in Lessans' infallibility, then you would have removed that section so as to prevent it from discrediting him whether you personally believed that part to be wrong or not.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the camera's lens is not focused on the moon

Lenses don't focus out on the object, lenses focus the incoming light from the object and into and onto the film or digital recording device or whatever the optical instrument uses.

[naturalist.atheist]

Guy's, you are simply aiding peacegirl in her illness. She needs a foil to feel like there is a fight she must fight. There is no reasoning with her. She can't reason. Think of her as a somewhat nicer and not drug addled version of Iacchus.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Holy shit, you apparently do not even know what the word "hypothetical" means!



Yes, he was hypothesisizing a situation in which God turns on the sun at noon. A hypothesis consists of an "if/then" construction: "I hypothosize that if A happens, we shall see B." That is what Lessans was doing! He was saying, "I hypothosize that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately, but not see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes."

And, of course, his hypothosis is wholly mistaken.

As was explained to you hundreds of pages ago, it's not even logically possible. Because, since the source light and the reflected light are the same light, either you will see both the sun and your neighbor immediately when God turns on the sun, OR you will see both some time later, after God turns on the sun. But it is not logically possible to see the soruce light, without also seeing, at the same time, the reflected light!

Now, you are not very bright, but you cannot possible fail to see how this is the case. You are just a dishonest little liar, is the real problem.

So, tell us, liar: Since you now claim the camera takes pictures in real time, too, how is it possible for God to turn on the sun, and for someone on earth to see it immediately, but not see his neighbor for eight and a half minutes, if his neighbor is holding a camera? Since the light must be present for the camera to work, and since you now claim that the camera works in real time, it logically follows that the neighbor would have to be visible in real time also, and not eight and a half minutes after God turns on the sun, as Lessans claimed.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Guy's, you are simply aiding peacegirl in her illness. She needs a foil to feel like there is a fight she must fight. There is no reasoning with her. She can't reason. Think of her as a somewhat nicer and not drug addled version of Iacchus.

She is an extreme narccisist, and we are her oxygen supply. Her supply ought to be cut off, but that's up to each individual, obviously.

I think people continue to rubberneck here out of a sense of astonishment. I can speak only for myself in saying that I have never before witnessed such a combination of density and dishonesty as in peacegirl, but I suspect that is true of others too, and we linger here like voyeurs, wondering what new astonishing idiocy she will come up with as her delusions are deconstructed.

She makes Young Earth Creationists look like paragons of honesty and rationality.

But this thread has been valuable, just not in any ways that reflect credit on peacegirl. A lot of info has been put out there, from the theory of relativity to optics to experiments showing that dogs can recognize their masters by photographs to how babies see to philosophical conceptions of time (eternalism vs. presentism). So the thread is wothwhile for those reasons.

[peacegirl]

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.

My children are rational people, but they are busy people. They have people they want to give the book to, but now I'm back to the drawing board seeing what I can streamline.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say "serious way", in fact I specifically said...Any rational person would be doing something, no matter how small, if they truly believed this to be the answer to world peace.

I did say they would sell the books when I get some. A lot of people show interest the minute they see the title. My children don't like that I'm talking on these forums when I told them how people act toward me. They don't want to hear about it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For examples if you were my mom I would have proofread and formatted the book for you (saving you the however much you paid). I would have set you up a blog or website and suggested articles and excerpts. I would have researched various aspects so you could more intelligently present the material. I would have found likely audiences and opportunities via conventions or even podcasts. It would be a frequent topic of dinner conversation and I would offer my ideas and critiques.

No, my children don't have time to proofread. Even my own sister can't do that and she believes in the book. I am getting a website set up for free, why would they have to do this for me? As far as research goes, the evidence is in the book and only needs more empirical studies to confirm it. It use to be a frequent topic of dinner conversation when my father was living. My children don't live with me so that's not possible. You're grasping at straws LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Those happen to be my strengths, and none of them would amount to a "serious" commitment. Hell I do stuff like that for my in-laws and friends...my MOM is way above them especially when she is working on something I feel strongly about too.

What do you mean your mom is way above them when she is working on something you feel strongly about?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have a son who is a doctor, did you even have a basic discussion about the vaccine and modern medicine criticisms found in the book?

You have no idea what that chapter is about. It is not a criticism of modern medicine. It's just is an extension of the basic principle to show how errors in medicine will be prevented by this natural law.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the book begins to draw attention, I'm sure they will be supportive.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yeah big believers in "the most important discovery ever!" always wait around for attention and are then "probably supportive".

They are not as invested as I am. They are one step removed and have a life of their own. My sister grew up with this book but she is in business and shares the book with people she believes would take an interest, but she doesn't go around talking on forums like I do. So What? It certainly doesn't mean what you think it does.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your family is part of the world that you think should accept and implement these principles on a global scale, and it's very pertinent that they are not 100% on board the Lessans train. It's not a last ditch effort to discredit you, it's an informative bit of context.

What you're doing is not informative at all. There's no connection with the validity of this book and whether my children play an active role in promoting it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seems to me either your family thinks the book is bullshit and just stays busy and avoids the topic to avoid hurting your feelings OR they are incredibly odd and selfish people that have no problem letting their mom flounder around, and spend tons of money, and get all stressed out and don't lift a finger even though they are convinced her efforts will lead to world peace.

Wrong again. They have not gotten as involved in the book as I have, being Lessans' daughter. This is my endeavor, not theirs. I desired to spend the money, they didn't tell me to, nor are they required to help me financially. To tell you the truth they don't think about my efforts to promote the book; they are wrapped up in their own lives and I can't blame them for that. Call it selfish if you want, but it's not selfish to want to live your own life, not someone else's. And who are you to judge?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lenses don't focus out on the object, lenses focus the incoming light from the object and into and onto the film or digital recording device or whatever the optical instrument uses.

We're losing track of what's really important here. All we need do is accept on faith that vision is "efferent." At that point we can move on to the good stuff, including "how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them." (Sacred Text at 364.)

That's right! After the rumpy pumpy is complete, it will be no more possible for the couple to desire sleeping together than it is for 2+2 to equal 5!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Holy shit, you apparently do not even know what the word "hypothetical" means!



Yes, he was hypothesisizing a situation in which God turns on the sun at noon. A hypothesis consists of an "if/then" construction: "I hypothosize that if A happens, we shall see B." That is what Lessans was doing! He was saying, "I hypothosize that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately, but not see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes."

He used the word "if". It was hypothetical.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 120

To paraphrase this another way; if you
could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see
me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same
time that a person sitting right next to me would — which brings us
to another very interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards.

Originally Posted by davidm

And, of course, his hypothosis is wholly mistaken.

As was explained to you hundreds of pages ago, it's not even logically possible. Because, since the source light and the reflected light are the same light, either you will see both the sun and your neighbor immediately when God turns on the sun, OR you will see both some time later, after God turns on the sun. But it is not logically possible to see the soruce light, without also seeing, at the same time, the reflected light!

It was a hypothetical example so people could better understand the function of light as a condition of sight, not a cause.

Originally Posted by davidm

Now, you are not very bright, but you cannot possible fail to see how this is the case. You are just a dishonest little liar, is the real problem.

So, tell us, liar: Since you now claim the camera takes pictures in real time, too, how is it possible for God to turn on the sun, and for someone on earth to see it immediately, but not see his neighbor for eight and a half minutes, if his neighbor is holding a camera? Since the light must be present for the camera to work, and since you now claim that the camera works in real time, it logically follows that the neighbor would have to be visible in real time also, and not eight and a half minutes after God turns on the sun, as Lessans claimed.

I agree with you which is why a camera takes the exact photograph the eyes see, so now get off of this subject already. You're like a broken record that never stops going round and round.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lenses don't focus out on the object, lenses focus the incoming light from the object and into and onto the film or digital recording device or whatever the optical instrument uses.

LadyShea, lenses gather light...and here is the operative word...FROM THE OBJECT. You can't get a picture without THE OBJECT BEING PRESENT IN SOME FORM. That's why we could never gather light onto a lens that would show Columbus discovering America, because that event is no longer PRESENT.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

We're losing track of what's really important here. All we need do is accept on faith that vision is "efferent." At that point we can move on to the good stuff, including "how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them." (Sacred Text at 364.)

That's right! After the rumpy pumpy is complete, it will be no more possible for the couple to desire sleeping together than it is for 2+2 to equal 5!

There you go again, corrupting everything he discussed as an extension of the basic principle, just to get a cheap laugh.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eight: Until Death Do They Part p. 365

There is nothing wrong in desiring to sleep together but
it cannot be satisfied unless both parties want the same thing.
If they do not desire to move to another bed after making love,
then it is obvious that both are content with the sleeping
arrangement. But having only one double bed as the only
alternative involves the same principle of considering only one
person’s desire, and it is a subtle form of advance blame. If our
partner wants to sleep alone while we do not, we are the ones who are
being selfish if we demand that they honor our request.

In our
present world we justify criticizing our partner for wanting to sleep
alone by invoking sleeping together as a condition of marriage. We
expect them to show their love by sacrificing their desire in favor of
ours which only reveals our selfishness by expecting them to give up
what they have the right-of-way not to. Then when they insist on
sleeping alone, and because we believe we are right, we call them
selfish and strike the first blow to get even for something that does
not infringe on anyone else’s desires. But when we know they have
the right-of-way and that they would never blame us for striking this
blow no matter what we do to hurt them for not satisfying our desire,
then we are given no choice but to sacrifice our selfishness and respect
desires that make no demands on us.

[Stephen Maturin]

See? In one breath Lessans claimed that "it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them" and in the very next breath he acknowledged exactly the opposite, namely that it will indeed be possible to desire sleeping together. The fact that he couldn't go a whole page without stepping on his own weh-weh obviously doesn't bother you, but surely you can understand how it might bother folks accustomed to .. well, to thinking.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, lenses gather light...and here is the operative word...FROM THE OBJECT. You can't get a picture without THE OBJECT BEING PRESENT IN SOME FORM. That's why we could never gather light onto a lens that would show Columbus discovering America, because that event is no longer PRESENT.

They gather light. Full stop.

The image recorded is based only on the intensity and wavelengths and distribution of that light, as Spacemonkey pointed out, and those qualities speak to the distance the light has traveled, the angle, and any materials it interacts with on the way.

All the rest of your "present" stuff is you trying to shoehorn the way things actually work into Lessans ideas.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He used the word "if". It was hypothetical.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 120

To paraphrase this another way; if you
could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see
me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same
time that a person sitting right next to me would — which brings us
to another very interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards.

It was a hypothetical example so people could better understand the function of light as a condition of sight, not a cause.

And this is where he contradicted Causality and Relativity with the real time information transfer across 800 light years.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He used the word "if". It was hypothetical.

Wow. Just, wow.



I'll ask you again: don't you understand what "hypothetical" means? Here are you father's own fucking words:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 120

To paraphrase this another way; if you
could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see
me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same
time that a person sitting right next to me would — which brings us
to another very interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards.


See? he is making a claim: if x obtains, y will follow. The claim is false. Ergo his hypothesis was incorrect. This means that the world does not work the way that he claimed.

His hypothetical turning on of the sun was intended to be a thought experiment to illustrate the way that he incorrectly thought that the world actually worked. It doesn't work that way. He is wrong.

Q.E.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I agree with you which is why a camera takes the exact photograph the eyes see, so now get off of this subject already. You're like a broken record that never stops going round and round.

I'm sorry, you dishonest little twit, but you have evaded the question. So the record will go round again. Here it is again:

1. According to Lessans, if God turned on the sun at noon, you and your neighbor standing next to you would see the sun instantly, but you would not see your neighbor until eight minutes had passed.

2. Your neighbor standing next to you has a camera.

3. You now say that the camera would take pictures in real time, like sight.

4. This means the light must be at the camera.

5. If the light is at the camera, the light will be at the camera taker, and, contrary to what Lessans said, you would see your neighbor standing next to you, when you saw the sun turned on. Thus, Lessans is wrong again.

More generally, you dishonestly evade the central point. I say you evade it, since, although you are very, very dumb, you can't possibly be this dumb.

If God turns on the sun at noon, why would you see it immediately, but not your neighbor standing next to you for eight and a half minutes, since the source light (sun) and the reflected light (neighbor) is the same light?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I haven't found any history of tests that have been done.

Of course you haven't. You go to great lengths to avoid learning anything that you don't want to know. Not only will you not educate yourself on the matter, you've stated in this thread -- repeatedly -- that you have no intention of educating yourself on such matters.

So you're being very dishonest. Oh, sure, it may be true that you have no knowledge of such matters, but that's because you deliberately avoid acquiring such knowledge. So it's dishonest to pretend that such information doesn't exist, or that these matters have not been thoroughly and conclusively tested.

Would you please stop saying I was lying? I was doing no such thing. That is a purposeful act to deceive.

I will continue to call you a liar so long as you continue to lie.

Point 1: You spent pages insisting that cameras work on different principles than does the human eye, and that while the human eye sees in "real time," cameras do not. And that, therefore, we can see things that are not yet photographable, because the light that the camera needs in order to take a photograph has not yet arrived.

Point 2: You later told Vivisectus that you had never said any such thing.

Now, where I'm from, there's a word for that -- lying.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Those happen to be my strengths, and none of them would amount to a "serious" commitment. Hell I do stuff like that for my in-laws and friends...my MOM is way above them especially when she is working on something I feel strongly about too.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean your mom is way above them when she is working on something you feel strongly about?

Assisting my mom in furthering her goals is a higher priority to me than assisting other people, though I do help most anyone that needs it.

If I share her enthusiasm or passion for a project, I consider assisting her in furthering her goals an even higher priority.