A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

She still can't even properly format a post.

[The Lone Ranger]

Peacegirl demands evidence from others, while stoutly refusing to provide evidence for her own claims.

What's more, when she demands evidence that contradicts Lessans' claims and people give it to her -- in spades -- she refuses to read it.

She declares carefully-controlled experiments to be "inconclusive" and "invalid" without reading them, and with no knowledge whatsoever of what methodologies and controls were used. But she accepts without question purely anecdotal evidence which she thinks support her condition.


All of this merely makes her a hypocrite. But then she goes on to claim that no one can provide evidence that contradicts Lessans' claims -- even after people have provided reams of such evidence. Evidence that -- by her own admission -- she won't read. That makes her not just hypocritical and willfully ignorant, it makes her an outright liar.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have always maintained that we could detect white light, but we wouldn't see images of a past event.

And that answer relates to this example how?

We don't see the supernova until the light from the supernova event travels to Earth, which may take thousand or millions of years. Lessans claimed we don't have to wait for the light to arrive to see stars, using the example of the sun being turned on and seeing it before the light traveled for 8.5 minutes.

Seeing an event thousands or millions of years after it happened is pretty much the definition if seeing an image of a past event

So, do you agree with Lessans despite the facts, or do you admit that Lessans was wrong in the face of conclusive evidence?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please stop bringing that up. I told you why he did that, but you, like Vivisectus, can't let your false judgments of him go. I have yet to observe a dog recognize his master from a picture by a wag of his tail or any other sign that would be telling.

No I won't stop bringing it up. It's hysterical.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have reasons for my opinions about both you and Lessans and I have told you exactly what those reasons are. Yes, I call that honesty.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that is not honesty. That is dishonesty because your opinion is not based in reality.

LOL, what? Do you have some crazy Lessans-derived definition of the word (dis)honest too?

Despite your idiosyncratic use of the word "dishonest", my opinions are based on the absolute reality of Lessans writings and your posts. Anyone can read them. They may agree or disagree with my personal conclusions, but my opinion cannot be called dishonest

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you haven't understood the explanation. We just explained exactly why an image of that piece of matter cannot be resolved beyond a certain range. There's nothing strange about it at all.

Again, that is exactly what was just explained to you, and it makes perfect sense. What part do you not understand?

You are conflating two different points. One is the claim that an object can be in direct line of sight and still be too far away to be seen. That is what has just been explained. The other is that an object cannot be seen at all unless that object is still in existence and within a certain range at the time light from it is arriving at the eye/detector. That is not true and therefore does not need explaining.

That is simply not true, and is directly disproven by the Hubble telescope. The object has to be within a certain range at the time light leaves it for an image of it to be resolved, but that object need not still be within that range or even still exist at the time that light arrives at the detector. Our explanation does not have to explain this latter 'fact' because it is not a fact. It is your own unsupported claim. You can't argue that our explanation is inadequate because it can't explain your own made up 'facts'. You might as well claim that afferent vision is an inadequate model because it can't explain real-time vision.

Bump.

It is true that the object has to be in range at the time the light responsible for the image hits the surface of the object. Dispersion and resolution explains quite adequately on the afferent account how this works and why this is the case.

It is not true that this object has to still be within range at the later time when this light strikes the detector. That is not any kind of fact, and therefore does not stand in need of explanation. It is not any kind of inadequacy on the part of afferent vision that it does not explain this.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have yet to observe a dog recognize his master from a picture by a wag of his tail or any other sign that would be telling.

That is not surprising, you will not see what you are not looking for, or refuse to see. Several years I would ask "What color is a Yield Sign?" and people would insist that it was Yellow with black letters, 30 Years after thay had been changes to red and white and many years after the last one must have been replaced. They refused to see what was in front of them, and you refuse to see the truth of reality, your father was an uneducated arrogant buffoon.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Peacegirl demands evidence from others, while stoutly refusing to provide evidence for her own claims.

What's more, when she demands evidence that contradicts Lessans' claims and people give it to her -- in spades -- she refuses to read it.

She declares carefully-controlled experiments to be "inconclusive" and "invalid" without reading them, and with no knowledge whatsoever of what methodologies and controls were used. But she accepts without question purely anecdotal evidence which she thinks support her condition.

All of this merely makes her a hypocrite. But then she goes on to claim that no one can provide evidence that contradicts Lessans' claims -- even after people have provided reams of such evidence. Evidence that -- by her own admission -- she won't read. That makes her not just hypocritical and willfully ignorant, it makes her an outright liar.

Exactly. And what's more, I'm convinced that at least a significant part of her mind knows this. But she's so addicted to asserting her faith in her father's claims against strident rational opposition that she just can't help herself. She knows she is not making any kind of rational sense, she knows that she is not adopting any kind of consistent approach to evidence, and she knows that she is not being at all honest or reasonable in her responses. And as much as she would like to change that, such considerations pale into insignificance next to her compulsive need to keep asserting her unwavering faith in her father and his claims. She repeatedly tells us that she knows she is wasting her time, and that nothing she is doing is helping in any way to promote his book. But she's still here, and she'll keep on posting no matter how stupid and dishonest she has to make herself look.

[Spacemonkey]

Not sure if this has been linked to yet. Turns out he was actually pretty good when it came to pool. No mention here though of any mathematical or philosophical/scientific abilities, nor any particular capacity for astute observations.

I'm also tempted to contact Linda Seidel to see if she is aware of her sister's activities and condition.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Not sure if this has been linked to yet. Turns out he was actually pretty good when it came to pool. No mention here though of any mathematical or philosophical/scientific abilities, nor any particular capacity for astute observations.

I'm also tempted to contact Linda Seidel to see if she is aware of her sister's activities and condition.

Oh, yes, that was linked long ago.

And, your analysis of peacegirl above is spot on, I think. She knows she's talking twaddle but really can't help herself. Hey, maybe she's onto something after all about the lack of free will.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, yes, that was linked long ago.

And, your analysis of peacegirl above is spot on, I think. She knows she's talking twaddle but really can't help herself. Hey, maybe she's onto something after all about the lack of free will.

I must have missed it then. Has anyone tried to contact her sister? Does anyone think that would be inappropriate? I would hate to think that her family might be in a position to help her, and yet be unaware of her condition.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I must have missed it then. Has anyone tried to contact her sister? Does anyone think that would be inappropriate? I would hate to think that her family might be in a position to help her, and yet be unaware of her condition.

My personal opinion is that it would be inappropriate to contact her sister. I don't think the Internet should be used as a venue for prying into peoples' "real lives." It can cause no end of havoc. People have lost jobs because of crap they posted on the Internet. I'm in favor of a "non-overlapping magesteria" concept of the Web and real life.

As I have said a number of times before, if you are really concerned for her mental health -- and I do think she has some form of mental illness, though I'm not qualified to say what it is -- the best strategy is for everyone to stop posting to her. Yes, she will migrate to some other board, as she has done in the past, but the difference is this: probably every other board she goes to will eventually lock her insane threads, as they have been locked at boards she has frequented in the past. Here, these threads will never be locked. If people here would stop responding to her and then she went on to new boards and found another string of locked threads, perhaps she might at last be forced to confrot whatever is driving her obsessions. Or, perhaps not.

[LadyShea]

At least here she is learning something, even if she won't admit it. Unlike other fundies she has no place to surround herself with fellow believers and wallow in confirmation...so fighting with us gets information through her eye holes.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

...so fighting with us gets information through her eye holes.

Ah, "through her eye holes" presupposes afferent seeing! No wonder you are so lost, LadyShea! You have ruined it for everyone!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

At least here she is learning something...

I really don't think she is. I don't think she's learning anything from any of this.

What do you think about contacting her sister? It would be easy to send a brief and tactful message expressing concern for peacegirl's mental health, and directing attention towards her many past threads. On the one hand I'm tending to agree with davidm, but on the other peacegirl is clearly not well and her sister may be both unaware and also in a position to help. Then again, Peacegirl certainly won't appreciate our intentions, and her sister may well tell us it's none of our business.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I really don't think she is. I don't think she's learning anything from any of this.

What do you think about contacting her sister? It would be easy to send a brief and tactful message expressing concern for peacegirl's mental health, and directing attention towards her many past threads. On the one hand I'm tending to agree with davidm, but on the other peacegirl is clearly not well and her sister may be both unaware and also in a position to help. Then again, Peacegirl certainly won't appreciate our intentions, and her sister may well tell us it's none of our business.

One somewhat neutral means would be to advise the sister to review the threads and decide for herself what an appropriate course of action would be. You could also include links to previous forums that she has been on, might add weight to the impression from this thread.

[davidm]

I'll reiterate that I think it's a serious mistake to try to meddle in someone's "real life" based on "online life." None of us here have any idea what peacegirl's circumstances are IRL, and as far as I'm concerned it's rather presumptuous to think that one should meddle in those circumstances.

Just my opinion.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

I'll reiterate that I think it's a serious mistake to try to meddle in someone's "real life" based on "online life." None of us here have any idea what peacegirl's circumstances are IRL, and as far as I'm concerned it's rather presumptuous to think that one should meddle in those circumstances.

Just my opinion.

We also have no real idea what her motives are, we can read what she posts, but is that real or is it all a lie like many have accused her responses of being. She may be a very clever hustler with some agenda that is in no way obvious to those other particapants of this thread. Are we all just suckers playing her game?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

I'll reiterate that I think it's a serious mistake to try to meddle in someone's "real life" based on "online life." None of us here have any idea what peacegirl's circumstances are IRL, and as far as I'm concerned it's rather presumptuous to think that one should meddle in those circumstances.

Just my opinion.

And I think I agree, but where's the line? Internet people are still people. What if someone online was seriously considering hurting themselves or someone else, and while unable to talk them out of it you were capable of getting someone else to at least check up on the person IRL? Would you hold off just because it's only the internet?

[thedoc]

Just what is our responsability to this rather nebulous atmosprere on the internet. What is real and what is not, are you really as concerned as you portray or is it just an act. Am I really a nice guy, or some kind of psychopath looking for victims. The internet is just words on a page, Peacegirl may already be in an institution under the care of mental health professionals, and this may be part of her theropy?

Is Peacegirl really Janis Rafael, a grandmother, or just some juvenile looking for attention. Prove it.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit of a cynic, maybe.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You should be able to accept what I'm telling you...

Why?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just what is our responsability to this rather nebulous atmosprere on the internet. What is real and what is not, are you really as concerned as you portray or is it just an act. Am I really a nice guy, or some kind of psychopath looking for victims. The internet is just words on a page, Peacegirl may already be in an institution under the care of mental health professionals, and this may be part of her theropy?

Is Peacegirl really Janis Rafael, a grandmother, or just some juvenile looking for attention. Prove it.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit of a cynic, maybe.

Appearances can be deceiving in reality too. That doesn't usually prevent us from trying to help people who appear to need help. If you see what appears to be a child drowning in water you wouldn't first require proof that it isn't just a clothed mannequin before trying to help. If Peacegirl is just a teenager pretending to be Janis, then the real Janis would be able to come forward and reveal the imposter. If it turns out that she is already under institutional care, then I for one would be reassured to find that out. I'm just not sure that I buy into this whole 'It's only the internet, so no-one here has any moral obligations or duties towards anyone else' thing.

[Vivisectus]

I see no reason to believe that she is that different from scores and scores of fundamentalist believers anywhere. The owners and operators of the Creation Museum ignore just as much reality as she does, and I don't see anyone trying to get them institutionalized, while many of them admit to hearing voices!

I get a little worried sometimes when she gets very incoherent without noticing, as she does seem very confused when that happens. But I am sure that this is merely caused by the fact that her belief is so strong and yet also in such strong conflict with reality. I would be surprised if she had similar difficulties in everyday life, as she has no need to deny reality there.

In fact, I very much doubt anyone else is aware that she holds these beliefs. You can see both in the book and from her statements that built into her belief are explanations for the disbelief of the rest of the world, and reasons why she could not simply start the revolution herself. It is always someone else's fault: biased scientists, politicians and priests with vested interests in the status quo, close-minded people, etc etc etc.

There are also explanations for why she has not simply begun to live according to the book herself: she has to exist in a "free will environment". This is why her children were schooled normally, why they dated, why it seems they are completely unaware of or just avoiding anything to do with the book.

So the beliefs are pretty well insulated from the real world. This is necessary to retain the belief, otherwise the conflicts with reality would be too obvious. But when there are no irrational beliefs to defend, I very much doubt she has much of a problem with anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wow you are becoming blatant in your use of the ole "Astute Observations". Basically whenever you invoke it, you mean "I am not going to provide evidence for this point of view, but I am declaring it an "Astute Observation" which means it must be treated as convincingly proven anyway."

Lucky me! You have to admit that sentence is completely incoherent though. Learning language is something that happens in an outward direction from the brain?

Yes, a photograph of the object-word relation has to be taken first. In other words, first we see the object in real time, and then we attach a word to it which forms a mental slide in our brain. This is exactly how it works.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Huh? Now you're going to claim that we can't learn language unless we see in real-time? And your support for this is...?

Yes. They are. There is no connection between the two whatsoever.

You're making up excuses for not answering the question. The question does not presuppose anything that you yourself have not claimed to be true. You've said that there are photons at the film. Unless they are newly existing or stationary, then they had to get there somehow. So...

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

The only way this can be resolved is for you to look at the entire concept differently. You have to start out with the premise that the object must be in view, not just the light. If it's true that the object must be in view, then the light becomes a mirror image. You are constantly focusing on the light ONLY, because this is the only way you can logically reconcile this apparent discrepancy, but that's only because you are thinking terms of light + travel = destination.