A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

She won't seek therapy.

I am starting to wonder if she does this for the same reason some people keep debating Evolution/Creation or Atheism/Theism or Christianity/Paganism or Birther stuff or Conspiracy Theories or whatever.

I use these debates to educate myself and hone my discussion and communication skills. As in this thread, some topics come out of most any contentious debate that lead to research I wouldn't have done, or wouldn't have known to do, otherwise.

True Believers tend to do it to justify their convictions and/or make themselves martyrs, in my experience. Like they get Cosmic Brownie Points for fighting the good fight.

[LadyShea]

I still am interested in who these Canadian scientists are/were and why there has been no follow up with them since they seemed to agree with Lessans

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dave claims to have seen a pavilion at an "Expo in Canada" with a sign reading “Come inside and let us prove scientifically that the eyes are not a sense organ.” Then came back to the US to become "very much involved". That involvement was nothing much, in reality, was it peacegirl?

Also, I call complete and total bullshit on there ever being a pavilion at an expo in Canada with such a sign. No way anyone else used Lessans exact phrasing "eyes are not a sense organ" and his weird choice of "scientifically", and if they did why didn't he follow up to see if these mysterious people were on the same track he was?

Who are these Canadian scientists and where is this proof? Really Lessans didn't seek them out? You haven't sought them out yourself peacegirl...scientists who are already inclined to agree with you? That would be a ludicrous choice for you to make!!

[naturalist.atheist]

Lone Ranger, I think her problem with learning extends beyond Lessans. It would be interesting to see how up she is on current events.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I mentioned early on in this thread that [the dude going to Canada thing] was not made up.

It looks like that conversation was with LadyShea. It certainly didn't involve me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I knew him, you didn't.

I never had the privilege of meeting your father in person, but I've read what you've represented to be his work. If he didn't loathe the medical profession, then large swaths of Chapter 7 missed their intended mark entirely.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually his last book was 89 pages. Blame the verbosity on me.

See, this is part of the problem. I doubt you meant to imply that a full 500 pages of Decline and Fall are yours and yours alone, but that's exactly what you did.

Quality of thought is only as good as quality of expression. Clarity is our friend. Embrace it.

[Angakuk]

Peacegirl,
Instant lightwave and instant reflection.

What do these words mean?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm not talking about something that is too small to see like bacteria. I'm talking about objects that, if the reflected light is traveling toward us, should strike the film. How many times must I repeat this?

We're not talking about objects being small, we're talking about the image they produce being small.

These cows, Dougal, are small and nearby. Those cows are large and far away...

You seem to have no comprehension of how light forms an image. You do realise that an object in the distance forms a smaller image on our retinas than an image nearby, don't you? That's why it looks smaller. A distant plane forms an image as small as nearby bacteria. That's why we can see neither without manipulating the light into creating a bigger image.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is definitely a visual range that our eyes are capable of seeing, and beyond that they cannot.

That's your assertion, and it's entirely false. Tell me, what is this range? I am fairly certain the limit depends on the size of the image made by light falling on my retina, which means the smaller the object, the closer I need to be to see it. If you think there is some maximum range no matter the size of the object is, please explain.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is definitely a visual range that our eyes are capable of seeing, and beyond that they cannot.

Are you talking about a distance here peacegirl? That is the commonest meaning of 'range'.

If so, then what kind of range were you thinking of? All these objects are visible to the naked eye:

• Mountains (maybe 50 miles away)
• The Moon (250,000 miles)
• The Sun (93,000,000 miles)
• Saturn (roughly 900,000,000 miles)
• Individual stars (Mu Cephi is probably the most distant naked eye individual star. It's at least 15,000,000,000,000,000 miles away)
• Andromeda galaxy (15,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away)
• People with exceptional eyes can see the M81 galaxy, which is 70,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away
• Hypernovas can sometimes outshine an entire galaxy, so even M81 may not be the all-time record holder

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If it's out of the field of view, we don't get an image because the camera can't focus light from an object that is not comeing from the object to the camera. If the light travels in a straight line from the object to the camera, the object is in the field of view. What part of this do you not understand?

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl uses 'out of field of view' to mean 'out of range'. Like if the object becomes too small to see. Of course, she doesn't read my explanations as to why we can't see things when this happens, or she chooses to ignore them. She also doesn't appear to know what an image is.

I'm trying to understand why we can't see things when this happens.

I know what an image is. It's a two-dimensional picture.

Originally Posted by Dragar

'Picture' is just anothe word for 'image'. I don't want synonyms, I want to know what it is in terms of other things. What is an image?

Originally Posted by Dragar

She does accept we can detect light using telescopes, and presumably also cameras. I wonder if she'd accept we can work out where the light is coming from?

Note that we're half-way to making a crude 4-pixel image if we can determine if the light is coming from up, down, left or right!

Is this what you're looking for?

An image is a rectangular grid of pixels. It has a definite height and a definite width counted in pixels. Each pixel is square and has a fixed size on a given display.

What is an Image?

I never said that we can't take a picture of light. What do you think a rainbow is?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Oh, so we can 'take a picture of light' (lol). So why can't we 'take a picture of light' that has been reflected by real objects (and not by moisture in the atmosphere, which is what happens for us to see rainbows)?

Because light reflects the universe through its properties; it doesn't bring the universe to us through its properties.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because light reflects the universe through its properties

Light doesn't reflect anything, things reflect or emit light. You've agreed to that, previously.

[LadyShea]

Here's a "two sided equation" for you

Light<-------------->lens and retina (or film, or CCD)

The properties of light interact in known and predicatble ways with lenses and retinas et al (and size, shape, etc. effect that interaction)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Sure, that's a bit better. But representations require something to be doing the representing. That's what represent means. So, when we have an image formed on the back of a camera, what is doing the representation?

Light, but that doesn't rule out real time seeing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because light reflects the universe through its properties; it doesn't bring the universe to us through its properties.

No, light does not reflect anything, the objects seen in the Universe, outside our solar system, are luminous objects that emit their own light. Light does not 'bring the Universe to us', light brings us information about stars and galaxies that make up the Universe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Premises, conclusions and reasoning are NOT hard data nor empirical evidence.

Hard data is numbers, consistent images, physical measurements, that sort of thing. Empirical evidence might include multiple survey statistics.

Neither are possible with the question of "free will" at this time. We can't measure greater satisfaction, we can't detect all factors entering into a decision being made in the brain. And speaking of the brain, which branch of science do you think is most likely to provide hard data about this organ, if not neuroscience?

So, it's philosophical at this time, and Lessans reasoning was poor in my opinion, and I don't really care about free will.

You're completely off base LadyShea. There is more to finding answers than statistical data. You can't give that up for a second, can you? This is your comfort zone. No wonder you're not interested in his first discovery because you think it's philosophical, not scientific. This goes back to the meaning of epistemology which is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity. If you believe there is no other way to find truth, than you will balk at anything that is not in your little toolbox.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are once again retreating behind your histrionic persecution complex.

Nobody is a wolf out for blood. You are aware this is a defense mechanism for you, aren't you?

Oh really? If it's not Davidm, it's Stephen Maturin, and if it's not Stephen Maturin, it's natural.atheist, and if it's not natural.atheist, it's thedoc. I can handle them individually but when I smell blood because they think I've been cornered, they all come out like werewolves. As much as I want to share this knowledge (which is why I've put up with these people from day one), I don't want the life sucked out of me.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is more to finding answers than statistical data.

Yes, there is. I never said differently.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't give that up for a second, can you? This is your comfort zone. No wonder you're not interested in his first discovery because you think it's philosophical, not scientific.

It is philosophical, not scientific. There's certainly nothing at all wrong with that, after all data can't interpret itself, statistics can't ascribe importance to themselves, it's just that free will is not something I am terribly interested in, nor do I think we can draw any conclusions about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This goes back to the meaning of epistemology which is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.

Yes, how we know things, what we can know, etc. is an important aspect of any endeavor to learn things.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you believe there is no other way to find truth, than you will balk at anything that is not in your little toolbox.

Depends on the truth you are trying to find. The scientific method is limited to those things that can be repeatedly observed, measured, and tested against hypotheses. Free will and greater satisfaction are not currently in this category.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? If it's not Davidm, it's Stephen Maturin, and if it's not Stephen Maturin, it's natural.atheist, and if it's not natural.atheist, it's thedoc. I can handle them individually but when I smell blood because they think I've been cornered, they all come out like werewolves. As much as I want to share this knowledge (which is why I've put up with these people from day one), I don't want the life sucked out of me.

They are simply responding to you. If there is any "blood" it's what you've thrown out there. I don't think you understand how outrageous most of what you are claiming is.

naturalist.atheist came to this thread scolding us, and he offered you a very fair hearing, and has become convinced you are mentally ill. That's in response to your words and claims, not because he is a wolf.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? If it's not Davidm, it's Stephen Maturin, and if it's not Stephen Maturin, it's natural.atheist, and if it's not natural.atheist, it's thedoc. I can handle them individually but when I smell blood because they think I've been cornered, they all come out like werewolves. As much as I want to share this knowledge (which is why I've put up with these people from day one), I don't want the life sucked out of me.

You can not handle them, and have not done so. None of their objections have been dealt with - they all still stand. Just because you ignore them does not mean they have been dealt with. Look at Spacemonkeys questions - you just answer vaguely, contradict yourself every now and again, and generally stall so it seems like you have said something when you really haven't. When pressed, you invent magic lenses and un-travelling instant lightwaves, without realizing how nonsensical that is. Jupiters moons have not been explained. Mirrors have not been explained. Supernovas have not been explained. The fact that cameras and eyes see the same thing has not been explained - lenses are NOT magic. In fact not a single one of the claims made in the book have been backed up - we have not been shown a single reason to believe them to be correct.

The interesting thing is that you seem to feel that despite this, you have actually been refuting these points, in stead of merely showing how far you are willing to warp reality in order to make it seem like the book makes sense. The things you say make no sense, so you must either be purposefully using nonsensical statements, or statements that you yourself do not understand.

Just like your father, you just want it to sound good. You are not really interested in the actual substance at all. That is why you happily invoke "field of view" without knowing what it really means, and "lightwaves", and "Instant reflections" without actually working out what these things would mean, and what the implications would be.

This whole work is about the need for validation - your father must have felt it quite deeply. This is evidenced by his deep resentment of academia. Look at the amount of pages spent venting about the educated and how arrogant they are! He even went so far as to get the word "intelligent" struck from our collective lexicons altogether. He desperately wanted to believe that what he did was a work of genius, and refused to accept the criticism levelled at him by just about every single person he ever showed this work to. Except for Dave from Canada, and that only lasted until the concussion wore off.

The whole work was the obsession of someone not bright enough to spot the glaring inconsistencies, but arrogant enough to dismiss all criticism as merely biased. He has passed it on to you, and now it is leading an amusing half-life as a sort of object lesson in cognitive dissonance: it shows how futile it is to demonstrate reason to the truly brainwashed, as they will happily warp reality itself to accommodate what they want to believe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Many pages ago Peacegirl introduced this impossable little puzzle and indicated that the object was relatively close but 'out of the field of view' and in a direct line of sight with the camera. She was setting a self contradictory test that could never happen as a condition that she would accept that efferent vision was not true. This bit of word salad is her way of clinging to her belief since no-one can demonstrate what she demands. Actually a very clever phrasing of the test to eliminate the possability of disproving Lessans.

There is nothing contradictory here. You're just refusing to accept that an observation as simple as this was not picked up by scientists.

[peacegirl]

[quote=thedoc;997857]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't understand why the camera cannot focus the light if it's in a straight line with it. It doesn't add up.

If that's true doc, why then is there no image on the film when the object is out of the field of view but in a direct line with it? Everyone is skirting the issue.

Originally Posted by thedoc

The camera does focus the light that is in a straight line with it, which means it is also in the field of view.

By definition it does not mean it's also in the field of view. That's why I am disputing the whole idea of light bringing information to the eye.

Originally Posted by thedoc

They go together you can't seperate them. 'In the line of sight' means the same thing as 'in a straight line with the camera', which means the same thing as 'in the field of view'.

Again, if that were true we would be able to see the "image" of the object on the film, but we don't. All we get is light, no image. Why can't people admit that there's something wrong here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

LadyShea, I applaud you for your patience and diligence. You have treated peacegirl fairly and firmly. However, you can explain optics to a person with severe learning and comprehension problems along with obsessive delusions until you are blue in the face and it will get you nowhere.

Everyone here treating peacegirl as if she were just dim witted or deceptive is enabling her disease. It is unlikely that you or anyone else on the internet is gonna talk peacegirl out of her illness. She needs to get help. It may take some serious pharma.

If this isn't collusion I don't know what is. It's all about group think that says how dare anyone to try to bring something new without the group's permission. These people who are doing this are no more than heretics against the very fabric of what we deem truth to be. They are no more than fundamentalists acting as if they have our hard earned science under their belt. To disrupt our position as authorities of what is true and what isn't is heresy of the worst kind. Sound familiar?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this isn't collusion I don't know what is. It's all about group think that says how dare anyone to try to bring something new without the group's permission. These people who are doing this are no more than heretics against the very fabric of what we deem truth to be. They are no more than fundamentalists acting as if they have our hard earned science under their belt. To disrupt our position as authorities of what is true and what isn't is heresy of the worst kind. Sound familiar?

peacegirl, I am one of the very last people in the universe that could lead the posters here in group think. It just so happens that on occasion I express something that even they find they must agree with. In your case it has become painfully obvious. You are very ill peacegirl, and your illness is such that you think you are completely healthy. It is called delusion.

You need lots of help. Where are your children? They should be intervening with you right now.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? If it's not Davidm, it's Stephen Maturin, and if it's not Stephen Maturin, it's natural.atheist, and if it's not natural.atheist, it's thedoc. I can handle them individually but when I smell blood because they think I've been cornered, they all come out like werewolves. As much as I want to share this knowledge (which is why I've put up with these people from day one), I don't want the life sucked out of me.

Read this as she deep down realizes that she is as nutty as a fruit cake and wants to stay that way.

peacegirl I stopped trying to correct your nonsense some time ago when I realized you were mentally ill. Since then I've been trying to figure out what your perceptual and cognitive problems are. I warned you of this some time ago. That the more you post the more I will learn.

Get some help peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

True, N.A. and I disagree on most everything, and have for years.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's true doc, why then is there no image on the film when the object is out of the field of view but in a direct line with it? Everyone is skirting the issue.

By definition it does not mean it's also in the field of view. That's why I am disputing the whole idea of light bringing information to the eye.

Again, if that were true we would be able to see the "image" of the object on the film, but we don't. All we get is light, no image. Why can't people admit that there's something wrong here?

When an object is 'in the line of sight', 'in a straight line with the camera', and 'in the field of view' we do get an image on the film, and we get it from the light. You are the only one who claims that there is no image, which is wrong, and most of what you are saying is contradictory nonsense. When everything is lined up we get an image, if the object is out of view it is not in line with the camera.

Your first quote on this post is a simple contradiction, which shows that you do not understand what you are saying, and you do not understand optics.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl. The physics that explain how and when a camera is able to resolve an image has been explained to you many times. Go back and read and quit saying we have skirted the issue. It has not been skirted, you are either ignoring it, or can't comprehend it.