A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I need to disagree with you on this, because I do understand what she is saying, even though I know it's fiction and wrong in relation to reality. Just because it is nonsense does not make it not understandable. The part that worries me is that I read what she says and I know what she means, and if I understand this gibberish, what does that say about me?

It says that you're paying attention and your synapses are in working order.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was responding tongue and cheek. You can't even take a joke.

The object doesn't magically send anything. All it does is absorbs certain wavelengths. The photons that allow us to see the object are at the retina the minute we open our eyes.

1. Everything you write is a joke. YOU are a joke.

2. The photons are at the retina the minute we open our eyes? Then why, according to Stupid, are we unable to see our neighbors for eight and a half minutes, after God turns on the sun?

3. You claim cameras take pictures in real-time, after earlier saying they take pictures in delayed time. This means you disagree with Lessans. Lessans said that after the sun is turned on, we won't see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes. But if the neighbor is holding a camera, this means the light won't arrive at the camera for eight and a half minutes. This means that if we see in real time, the camera takes pictures in delayed time. This is what Lessans said.

4. But if this is true, what the camera takes a picture of, and what we see, will fail to match. But they do match.

5. Conclusion: Lessans was wrong, and you are nuts.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I need to disagree with you on this, because I do understand what she is saying, even though I know it's fiction and wrong in relation to reality. Just because it is nonsense does not make it not understandable. The part that worries me is that I read what she says and I know what she means, and if I understand this gibberish, what does that say about me?

You understand what she is saying? There person who variously claims that cameras do, and don't, take pictures in real time?

Do tell the rest of us what she is saying!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

That's correct. As was explained to the bimbo hundreds of pages ago, there are no efferent structures AT ALL in the optic system. The Lone Ranger wrote a whole essay about how we see, and she refused to read it.

The eyes are in front of the brain for a reason. The mechanism as to how it all works is a theory. It is not proven David, and you know it. You're just so angry that your sacred beliefs about how things work are being contested.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

I'm new here, don't know how the system works. How do you start a new thread?

When you are browsing and click on a forum, at the top of the list of threads on that forum will be a button to click on [new thread] and you fill in the title and first post. For example this is the philosophy forum and if you click on philosophy it will take you to the main page of the philosophy forum, and there you are.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It says that you're paying attention and your synapses are in working order.

Can that be cured?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And what have you learned? It works both ways.

Originally Posted by davidm

That you father was a buffoon, and that you are nuts.

Originally Posted by davidm

What's so off-putting about you is not so much that you deny reality, although that is bad. It's that you don't even understand anything about the reality that you are denying.

I know enough about your version of reality to be able to explain my version, which is more accurate.

Originally Posted by davidm

You mean, like the way that your version predicts that the moons of Jupiter will be seen instantaneously no matter where they are in the sky, when in fact they are seen in delayed time, which automatically disproves your version? Is that what you mean?

No it does not automatically disprove my version. Not until the fat lady sings.

Originally Posted by davidm

Now, apropos of your moronic statement about photons, a few questions:

How many photons do you think the sun gives off, oh, every second?

And in what direction do they travel?

Remember, you moronically claimed that under "our version of reality," we'd all be blind! Finding a photon would be like looking for a needle in a haystack!



Oh, and in your (nonsensical) "version of reality," you say, "the photons that strike the retina are precisely placed, not a hit or miss..." What does that mean? Does an object know it is being looked at, and magically send a "precisely placed" stream of photons? Or what?

I was responding tongue and cheek. You can't even take a joke.

The object doesn't magically send anything. All it does is absorbs certain wavelengths. The photons that allow us to see the object are at the retina the minute we open our eyes.

Originally Posted by davidm

1. Everything you write is a joke. YOU are a joke.

And you are vindictive.

Originally Posted by davidm

2. The photons are at the retina the minute we open our eyes? Then why, according to Stupid, are we unable to see our neighbors for eight and a half minutes, after God turns on the sun?

Because that's not true, that's why. We see the instantly because the photons are already at the eye.

Originally Posted by davidm

3. You claim cameras take pictures in real-time, after earlier saying they take pictures in delayed time.

You're right. I did change my stance but that was only because I hadn't extended the principle of efferent vision to cameras, so it took awhile to get it right.

Originally Posted by davidm

This means you disagree with Lessans. Lessans said that after the sun is turned on, we won't see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes. But if the neighbor is holding a camera, this means the light won't arrive at the camera for eight and a half minutes. This means that if we see in real time, the camera takes pictures in delayed time. This is what Lessans said.

I said that 300 pages ago David. A camera would take a snapshot of the same exact image that the eyes see. Where have you been, sleeping?

Originally Posted by davidm

4. But if this is true, what the camera takes a picture of, and what we see, will fail to match. But they do match.

Oh my goodness, you really have no clue as to what I've been demonstrating all this time. So much for progress.

Originally Posted by davidm

5. Conclusion: Lessans was wrong, and you are nuts.

The only conclusion is that you need to pay better attention. I know you have the intelligence. So why not put it to good use?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes are in front of the brain for a reason.

Oh, thank you, Miss State The Obvious of 2011! Where SHOULD they be? In the back of the brain, so you can see where you have been, rather than where you are going? Yep, that would have been a great evolutionary adaptation; oh, Lone Ranger, why didn't natural selection produce such an animal?

The mechanism as to how it all works is a theory.

No, asshat, it is a repeatedly observed and documented fact.

You're just so angry that your sacred beliefs about how things work are being contested.

The only one angry is you, and scared, too. You are angry and scared to know that you have wasted years of your life promoting rubbish, and to learn that you father was a buffoon. This you can't bear, and you will deny reality and logic itself to avoid facing the harsh truth.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

You understand what she is saying? There person who variously claims that cameras do, and don't, take pictures in real time?

Do tell the rest of us what she is saying!

I could just cut and paste her posts like she does with Lessans book, but I really don't have the time or the interest, just tske my word for it, if I didn't understand I'd say so, but I didn't say so, so I must understand. Got that?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes are in front of the brain for a reason. The mechanism as to how it all works is a theory. It is not proven David, and you know it. You're just so angry that your sacred beliefs about how things work are being contested.

You know, sometime along the duration of this long, torturous thread, I read Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole by Stephen Law. I swear, that book was practically written with peacegirl in mind.

"It's only a theory" - Seriously? Just like evolution is "only a theory"?

[davidm]

She doesn't even understand what a theory is in science. She actually doesn't understand anything at all. Monkeys banging randomly at typewriter keys would produce by accident more correct statements than she does.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The mechanism as to how it all works is a theory. It is not proven David, and you know it. .

One more time, a 'Scientific Theory' is knowledge that has been tested and proven, and the theory of sight as 'afferent vision' is a tested and proven scientific theory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Can that be cured?

Only if you stop desiring to learn new things. Then your synapses will atrophy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

One more time, a 'Scientific Theory' is knowledge that has been tested and proven, and the theory of sight as 'afferent vision' is a tested and proven scientific theory.

They think it's been proven, but now it's being challenged.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
No it does not automatically disprove my version. Not until the fat lady sings.

Kate Smith-- When The Moon Comes Over The...

Kate Smith introduces God Bless America -...

&feature=related
Doesn't get any better than this, I guess that's it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

She doesn't even understand what a theory is in science. She actually doesn't understand anything at all. Monkeys banging randomly at typewriter keys would produce by accident more correct statements than she does.

I know what a theory is. You are the one that keeps saying that science is all about evidence, and if there is new evidence that does not support a certain theory, then science needs to make modifications [if the new evidence is confirmed valid after further investigation]. Often theories have been around for so long that people see them as facts.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 114

But even today, we are still in
agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its
relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you
might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any
value to it with this comment as was made to me, “What difference
does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change
what we are. Whether we call them 5 senses, or 4 senses and a pair of
eyes is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if
man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long
as we think otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery?
Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them. Just as
my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the
knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation,
so likewise my second discovery is not that man does not have five
senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door.

Many years later we have an additional problem which is more
difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated
dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is
actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors,
doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against
anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the
truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear any evidence to the
contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful the resentment of
these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name
of justice and truth.

[Rickoshay75]

Peacegirl: Scientists don't know everything about the brain. There is a lot of unknown territory. They are mapping out what they believe to be happening in the visual cortex, but there is a lot yet to learn. >>

I agree. The problem is scientists are still going by old theories in Gray's Anatomy, published a hundred years ago, long before MRIs and all other detection devices.

They have names for all the parts, but no overall block diagram that explains how they all work as a SYSTEM

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They think it's been proven, but now it's being challenged.

By who? By you?



The woman who thinks photons give off photons?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what a theory is. You are the one that keeps saying that science is all about evidence, and if there is new evidence that does not support a certain theory, then science needs to make modifications [if the new evidence is confirmed true after further investigation]. Often theories have been around for so long that people see them as facts.

1. A "theory" is not a "fact."

2. You have never produced a "theory" of efferent seeing.

3. Efferent seeing is ruled out by the facts about, among other things, the biology of the optic system, and by our empirical observations of the moons of Jupiter -- to say nothing of tens of thousands of other facts and observations that make Lessans wrong. These observed facts are explained by theories.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, thank you, Miss State The Obvious of 2011! Where SHOULD they be? In the back of the brain, so you can see where you have been, rather than where you are going? Yep, that would have been a great evolutionary adaptation; oh, Lone Ranger, why didn't natural selection produce such an animal?

That was funny, I must say.

The mechanism as to how it all works is a theory.

Originally Posted by davidm

No, asshat, it is a repeatedly observed and documented fact.

The moons of Jupiter experiment looks like a slam dunk, but there is a possibility that another mechanism is at work. Are you the kind of person that would keep someone in jail just because you don't want to accept the fact that there is another way of looking at the case, which should cause some reasonable doubt?

You're just so angry that your sacred beliefs about how things work are being contested.

Originally Posted by davidm

The only one angry is you, and scared, too. You are angry and scared to know that you have wasted years of your life promoting rubbish, and to learn that you father was a buffoon. This you can't bear, and you will deny reality and logic itself to avoid facing the harsh truth.

I have not wasted my life, although I'm wasting a lot of time here. I am not denying reality or logic and there is no harsh truth to avoid facing. Maybe it's you that can't accept that your worldview might not be as airtight as you once thought. I'm not sure what it is you feel so threatened by, but it has a strong hold on you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They think it's been proven, but now it's being challenged.

NO, they know it's been proven, and if you are refering to Lessans book as a challenge, there's nothing of substance to it.

[Rickoshay75]

The Doc: Just because scientists don't know everything does not mean that what they do know is wrong. What is known is tested and reliable knowledge anything else is built on existing knowledge refining it and making it more accurate. It's very seldom that what is known is changed in a significant way, we just learn in more detail and accuracy.

Frankly I don't see how they can know how the human body functions as a system. Everything is inside, behind a wall of flesh and bones, and all the new detectors are a poor substitute for what we can detect with our eyes.

It isn't as though they can trace all the paths of the nerve systems like the wires in a house.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light from the sun is at the camera if it's daylight because the stream of photons are everywhere. It doesn't go from the object to the camera. If it's not daylight, then the light must be surrounding the object, not the camera, for a picture to be taken or for us to see the object with our eyes.

Okay, so the light whose wavelength will create a real-time image of our ball is light which has arrived from the sun directly, without previously striking the surface of the object being photographed.

In my example then, for a real-time image of a newly-blue ball, that light at the film (which came from the Sun) must be only blue in wavelength. But why would that be the case?

If the light leaving the sun is a combination of all wavelengths, then why is this light which has just arrived at the camera only blue?

Was this light also blue in wavelength just before it arrived at the camera?

How can this light now at the camera be light of only blue wavelength when the distant object has only just now begun absorbing all non-blue light and reflecting only blue light?

Why is the light at the camera only blue when it never even came from that object?

Do you really not see how nonsensical and poorly thought out this 'model' is? (Also please note that this model is yours and not Lessans'. He never provided any model, which is why you are having to make one up as you go along.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

The Doc: Just because scientists don't know everything does not mean that what they do know is wrong. What is known is tested and reliable knowledge anything else is built on existing knowledge refining it and making it more accurate. It's very seldom that what is known is changed in a significant way, we just learn in more detail and accuracy.

Frankly I don't see how they can know how the human body functions as a system. Everything is inside, behind a wall of flesh and bones, and all the new detectors are a poor substitute for what we can detect with our eyes.

It isn't as though they can trace all the paths of the nerve systems like the wires in a house.

Perhaps you should do what Peacegirl refuses to do, check into the scientific research that has been done, through experimentation, and the examination of the human body.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

Peacegirl: Scientists don't know everything about the brain. There is a lot of unknown territory. They are mapping out what they believe to be happening in the visual cortex, but there is a lot yet to learn. >>

I agree. The problem is scientists are still going by old theories in Gray's Anatomy, published a hundred years ago, long before MRIs and all other detection devices.

They have names for all the parts, but no overall block diagram that explains how they all work as a SYSTEM

I agree. They understand a lot, but there is more to be learned. To say that they have it all figured out could be an obstacle to exploring new ideas.