A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

why an object is not being picked up by film is just as valid an observation

That is not an actual observation anyone has made. Do you understand what "observation" actually means?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly thedoc. Finally you are speaking with conviction by telling others to get with the program.

I was refering to Davidm's observations about Lessans, that were very astute, are you so stupid that you can't understand who is being refered to, or recognize sarcasm when you see it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is not an actual observation anyone has made. Do you understand what "observation" actually means?

Apparently Peacegirl believes an observation is what you preceive right behind your eyeballs.

[Angakuk]

and then project onto a screen of undeniable substance.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you on about?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why else do you think he was capable of making these claims about light without being a physicist?

Making claims is easy. The less one knows the easier it is to make claims, particularly of the unfounded and unsupported variety. Why, I have even observed you doing that very thing, so how hard can it be?.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is not an actual observation anyone has made. Do you understand what "observation" actually means?

Yes, I understand what an observation actually means. What am I missing?

[ceptimus]

After considerable research, I can report that the 'Lessans Puzzle' is a restatement of Kirkman's Schoolgirl Problem:

Fifteen young ladies of a school walk out three abreast for seven days in succession: it is required to arrange them daily so that no two shall walk abreast more than once.

Originally Posted by The website linked to above

This puzzle was proposed by English amateur mathematician Thomas Penyngton Kirkman in 1850 in a popular magazine called "The Lady's and Gentleman's Diary". There are 7 unique solutions and Kirkman found them all.

The distinct solutions are all arranged alphabetically to avoid duplicates by swapping 'days'. They also ignore trivial duplicates such as swapping all the occurrences of 'B' and 'C' and then rearranging the resulting groups alphabetically.

The 7 distinct solutions are (also taken from the website linked above):

Solution 1
[ A B C , D E F , G H I , J K L , M N O ]
[ A D G , B E J , C F M , H K N , I L O ]
[ A E N , B D O , C H L , F I K , G J M ]
[ A F L , B I N , C J O , D H M , E G K ]
[ A H J , B K M , C E I , D L N , F G O ]
[ A I M , B G L , C D K , E H O , F J N ]
[ A K O , B F H , C G N , D I J , E L M ]
Solution 2
[ A B C , D E F , G H I , J K L , M N O ]
[ A D G , B E J , C F M , H K N , I L O ]
[ A E N , B D O , C H L , F I K , G J M ]
[ A F H , B I N , C J O , D K M , E G L ]
[ A I J , B H M , C E K , D L N , F G O ]
[ A K O , B F L , C G N , D H J , E I M ]
[ A L M , B G K , C D I , E H O , F J N ]
Solution 3
[ A B C , D E F , G H I , J K L , M N O ]
[ A D G , B E J , C F M , H K N , I L O ]
[ A E N , B D O , C H L , F I K , G J M ]
[ A F L , B G K , C J N , D I M , E H O ]
[ A H M , B I N , C D K , E G L , F J O ]
[ A I J , B F H , C G O , D L N , E K M ]
[ A K O , B L M , C E I , D H J , F G N ]
Solution 4
[ A B C , D E F , G H I , J K L , M N O ]
[ A D G , B E J , C F M , H K N , I L O ]
[ A E N , B D O , C H L , F I K , G J M ]
[ A F L , B I N , C G O , D H J , E K M ]
[ A H M , B G K , C E I , D L N , F J O ]
[ A I J , B L M , C D K , E H O , F G N ]
[ A K O , B F H , C J N , D I M , E G L ]
Solution 5
[ A B C , D E F , G H I , J K L , M N O ]
[ A D G , B E J , C F M , H K N , I L O ]
[ A E O , B D N , C H L , F I K , G J M ]
[ A F L , B I M , C J N , D H O , E G K ]
[ A H J , B K O , C E I , D L M , F G N ]
[ A I N , B G L , C D K , E H M , F J O ]
[ A K M , B F H , C G O , D I J , E L N ]
Solution 6
[ A B C , D E F , G H I , J K L , M N O ]
[ A D G , B E J , C F M , H K N , I L O ]
[ A E O , B D N , C H L , F I K , G J M ]
[ A F H , B I M , C J N , D K O , E G L ]
[ A I J , B H O , C E K , D L M , F G N ]
[ A K M , B F L , C G O , D H J , E I N ]
[ A L N , B G K , C D I , E H M , F J O ]
Solution 7
[ A B C , D E F , G H I , J K L , M N O ]
[ A D G , B E J , C H M , F K N , I L O ]
[ A E L , B D N , C G K , F I M , H J O ]
[ A F O , B L M , C D I , E H K , G J N ]
[ A H N , B I K , C E O , D J M , F G L ]
[ A I J , B F H , C L N , D K O , E G M ]
[ A K M , B G O , C F J , D H L , E I N ]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And if his observation regarding conditioning was correct but his posited supporting explanation (efferent vision) was incorrect, what then?

It is possible to make an accurate observation then make a mistake in the explanation of how that happens you know.

Many, many people made the observation that apples fall down towards Earth and offered possible explanations/hypotheses, but Newton is the one who offered the best explanation for that, gravity, so is the one remembered today.

That doesn't mean the others made inaccurate observations, they just didn't offer the best explanations for it.

Added to previous post: You can also have the best sounding explanation and still be wrong. If an observation is contested, then the original observation has to be reexamined. Isn't that what science is all about?

[LadyShea]

You are missing what optics states and predicts regarding photography, as well as the fact that we do take pictures of light only all time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I said several times, this is going to be the sticking point, because his ideas on sight and time are just too improbable, and anyone with a scientifically bent mind is going to focus on that.

With the no free will, conditioning, blame, even the death discovery, there is much less hard science and mountains of data working against you...these are much more philosophical discussions

You're wrong on both counts LadyShea. There is nothing improbable about seeing in the present. It only feels that way because that's what you were taught from early on. There is also no hard data that disproves Lessans' first discovery. These are not philosophical discussions, although this knowledge was borne out of philosophical thought.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Copyright Page

Summary: There have been many books written on world peace, yet war has once again taken its deadly toll in the 21st century. The dream of peace has remained an unattainable goal — until now. The following pages reveal a scientific discovery regardinga psychological law of man’s nature never before understood. This finding was hidden so successfully behind layers and layers of dogma and misunderstanding that no one ever knew a deeper truth existed. Once this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, it will allow mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction — creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations. Although this discovery was borne out of philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are missing what optics states and predicts regarding photography, as well as the fact that we do take pictures of light only all time.

Please don't weasel LadyShea. This is too important to be playing games. I'm not talking about taking a picture of light. I'm talking about taking a picture of an object.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't weasel LadyShea.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong on both counts LadyShea. There is nothing improbable about seeing in the present.

You're right, it's not improbable. It's impossible.

It only feels that way because that's what you were taught from early on.

You really are a stupid twat. So, like the Bible or your dumb Daddy's book, you think the hard-won knowledge of science is handed down like a sacred text?

There is also no hard data that disproves Lessans' first discovery.

Moons of Jupiter, among thousands of experimental findings that conclusively disprove Lessans' claims. Theory of relativity, GPS systems, nucelar reactors, how we aim spaceships at planets, and on and on and on, all of which have been spelled out for you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Added to previous post: You can also have the best sounding explanation and still be wrong. If an observation is contested, then the original observation has to be reexamined. Isn't that what science is all about?

You think it's possible to contest the observation "apples fall down"?

In this case, nobody here is contesting Lessans observation that humans can become conditioned to project mistaken or false values onto reality. I, for one amongst others, agree that is entirely possible (though I strongly disagree that it is universal).

What we are contesting is that real time seeing and seeing efferently are required for that type of mental conditioning to happen.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't weasel LadyShea. This is too important to be playing games. I'm not talking about taking a picture of light. I'm talking about taking a picture of an object.

Galaxies are objects

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an observation is contested, then the original observation has to be reexamined. Isn't that what science is all about?

Not exactly. In order to contest the original observation one needs to identify errors in that observation. This you have not done. Therefore, you have not contested any of the relevant scientific observations. You have merely announced that you don't like them. This is not how science is done.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong on both counts LadyShea. There is nothing improbable about seeing in the present. It only feels that way because that's what you were taught from early on. There is also no hard data that disproves Lessans' first discovery. These are not philosophical discussions, although this knowledge was borne out of philosophical thought.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Copyright Page

Summary: There have been many books written on world peace, yet war has once again taken its deadly toll in the 21st century. The dream of peace has remained an unattainable goal — until now. The following pages reveal a scientific discovery regardinga psychological law of man’s nature never before understood. This finding was hidden so successfully behind layers and layers of dogma and misunderstanding that no one ever knew a deeper truth existed. Once this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, it will allow mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction — creating the conditions that prevent hurt and retaliation in human relations. Although this discovery was borne out of philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature.

Why did you quote this? Is it supposed to somehow buttress your claims? It doesn't you know, 'cause it is just you quoting yourself saying something that is not true.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

You're right, it's not improbable. It's impossible.

You really are a stupid twat. So, like the Bible or your dumb Daddy's book, you think the hard-won knowledge of science is handed down like a sacred text?

Moons of Jupiter, among thousands of experimental findings that conclusively disprove Lessans' claims. Theory of relativity, GPS systems, nucelar reactors, how we aim spaceships at planets, and on and on and on, all of which have been spelled out for you.

David, seriously, none of those things have anything to do with Lessans' alleged first discovery. They all relate to, and refute, Lessans' claims regarding sight, but they have no bearing on his claims regarding the existence of free will.

[LadyShea]

Another dupe!!

[LadyShea]

There is also no hard data that disproves Lessans' first discovery.

It is not possible to get hard data proving or disproving the assertion that man's will is not free. That is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one, at this time. Neuroscience may be able to offer hard evidence one way or the other at some point, possibly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Making claims is easy. The less one knows the easier it is to make claims, particularly of the unfounded and unsupported variety. Why, I have even observed you doing that very thing, so how hard can it be?.

Look, if you all really don't think he has anything valid, then let's be done with this thread. Rickoshay is right. You don't think in terms of maybe. God forbid I have someone that takes my side. You're like a pack of wolves going for the jugular.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is not possible to get hard data proving or disproving the assertion that man's will is not free. That is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one, at this time. Neuroscience may be able to offer hard evidence one way or the other at some point, possibly.

LadyShea, you're beginning to upset me. You have no idea what you're talking about, so please don't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

David, seriously, none of those things have anything to do with Lessans' alleged first discovery. They all relate to, and refute, Lessans' claims regarding sight, but they have no bearing on his claims regarding the existence of free will.

Thank you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you won't really be able to move on here, because this discussion has cemented Lessans as a crank and you as a True Believer to most of the participants.

You may find you get a better reception if you edit the book and present it without the sight stuff on your own site or blog or whatever you are working on.

I'm leaving it as is. I'm not going to bend over backwards just because there are people who want to call Lessans a crank and me a true believer. Hell, if the majority of people have no real interest, this has truly been a waste of time.