A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That really is the most demented nonsense I have ever heard. And none of this deals with the problem of categories.

You must admit that Lessans had a well developed imagination and could really be inventive. I'd bet that when he wasn't thinking this stuff up, or writing it down, he was laughing himself silly. Perhaps that is why it took so long to write?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You must admit that Lessans had a well developed imagination and could really be inventive. I'd bet that when he wasn't thinking this stuff up, or writing it down, he was laughing himself silly. Perhaps that is why it took so long to write?

Yeah, I've considered the possibility that Lessans was writing a parody of crackpot thinking, and that he was spitting up with laughter when he wrote this shit, like the stuff about how it's mathematically undeniably certain that in the new world no one will share beds anymore. Seymour was a pool hustler, he was just having a big happy hustle on everyone and her daughter took it seriously. He should have told her that he was kidding.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yeah, I've considered the possibility that Lessans was writing a parody of crackpot thinking, and that he was spitting up with laughter when he wrote this shit, like the stuff about how it's mathematically undeniably certain that in the new world no one will share beds anymore. Seymour was a pool hustler, he was just having a big happy hustle on everyone and her daughter took it seriously. He should have told her that he was kidding.

If she was 6 when he made his non-discovery he may have read parts of it to her not thinking she would become so attatched to it. Then as she turned 18 and he realized what had happened he may have spent the last 20 years of his life trying to correct his mistake (burning copies of the book) but she kept a copy and is now publishing it with her own additions to it. It would be hard to imagine a real father making a joke like this and being that cruel to a child.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Exactly right. The only discrepancy is the one Lessans created...there is no reason at all to think that light + travel = destination isn't an accurate description of reality.

You are positing additional assumptions (Occam's razor, remember?) without explaining them. How does light "become" a mirror image, and what exactly is the mirror image? What is the location of this mirror image? If it is made of light (ie photons) how did the photons GET to be at the mirror image's location?

The location of the mirror image is on the film/retina, but this image does not have to travel to Earth first.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The location of the mirror image is on the film/retina, but this image does not have to travel to Earth first.

LOL, then how does it get there?

You still dishonestly refuse to answer this question. Because you CAN'T. You would actually gain respect if you simply said, "I have no fucking idea how it gets there, I really have no fucking idea what I am talking about, but I have to believe in it because Lessans said it."

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The location of the mirror image is on the film/retina, but this image does not have to travel to Earth first.

Where in my questions is there anything about "images traveling to Earth"? I don't think "images" travel, nor did I say anything about a non-terrestrial source of the images I don't think are traveling.

My question is pretty simple. Please answer it. How did the photons that comprise the mirror image get to the location of the film/retina?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where in my questions is there anything about "images traveling to Earth"? I don't think "images" travel, nor did I say anything about a non-terrestrial source of the images I don't think are traveling.

My question is pretty simple. Please answer it. How did the photons that comprise the mirror image get to the location of the film/retina?

Think about this very carefully LadyShea, because you will not get it otherwise. Assuming it is true that the object is seen in real time, then doesn't it follow that the light that is revealing said object must also be at the film/retina in real time?

[LadyShea]

Assuming it is true that the object is seen in real time, then doesn't it follow that the light that is revealing said object must also be at the film/retina in real time?

Assuming it is true that we see in real time, the light -consisting of photons, that are physically existing particles subject to the laws of physics-, that is at the film/retina "in real time" has to come to be at that location by some physical mechanism.

What is the physical mechanism by which photons come to be at the same physical location as the film/retina?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think about this very carefully LadyShea, because you will not get it otherwise. Assuming it is true that the object is seen in real time, then doesn't it follow that the light that is revealing said object must also be at the film/retina in real time?

Yes, think about that very carefully, LadyShea!

Yes, indeed, assuming it is true that the object is seen in real time, then it logically follows that the light is revealing said object must also be at the film/retina in real time! Derp!

OK. We are asking, HOW is the light at the film in real time???

There is only one logical answer.

That light travels infinitely fucking fast. Then the photons will be at the film/retina in real time, of course!

But, Lessans admits that light does not travel infinitely fast!

This is the utter conundrum the big asshat saddled you with, and why all your attempts to explicate it lead to utter incoherence. His claim is self-contradictory. If photons travel at a fixed speed then by defintion they CANNOT be at the fucking film/retina in real time.

[Vivisectus]

Think about this very carefully LadyShea, because you will not get it otherwise. Assuming it is true that the object is seen in real time, then doesn't it follow that the light that is revealing said object must also be at the film/retina in real time?

But we are investigating IF objects are seen in real time. We have no proof THAT this happens. Nor do you have any plausible mechanism BY WHICH it could happen. Now IF instant sight was correct, then yes, light somehow needs to arrive at the retina at infinite speed.

However - this is not possible. Light travels at a finite speed and needs to cross the intervening space.

therefore objects are not seen in real time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Even if you were right about the object in addition to the light needing to be in existence when the photograph is taken (and you're not), you would still need to answer the same question that I'm asking you now. How did the photons at the film get there? As long as they did previously exist, and were not always stationary in that same place, then they had to get to the film somehow. You've tried to claim that they don't travel there (at light speed or faster than light) and that they don't teleport there. But that leaves you with no possible explanation. You have ruled out all possible answers to a question that your model needs to answer.

Here are the possible options:

1) The photons don't have to get there because they popped into existence there as the photograph was taken.
2) They don't have to get there because they have always been there, stationary at the film.
3) They got there by travelling there at the speed of light, taking time to do so.
4) They got there instantaneously by traveling faster than the speed of light.
5) They got there instantly without traveling through the intervening space, i.e. they teleported.
6) I, Peacegirl, have no idea how they got there, what I'm saying, or how this is supposed to work.

So either pick one, or provide an alternative. How did these photons get to the film?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with empirical testing, but sometimes the experiment itself is flawed and as a result it may appear that something is true when it really isn't.

That's not what I asked. I want to know why you require adequately controlled testing for evidence against Lessans, yet require no controls at all for evidence allegedly in his favor.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But Lessans' observations are much more than anecdotal. I am just confirming that I have never seen dogs recognize anyone from a picture, but this is not what I'm using as proof. I told you that Lessans came to this conclusion in an indirect way, and only after years and years of reading and study. Yes, it would have been nice if he had started out with a theory, and then looked to see if his theory was correct through empirical testing, but this is not how it happened. It was not his intention to discover anything. He had no theories; he had no presuppositions; he had no hypothesis. He didn't even think about the eyes, or whether man's will was free or not. After years of reading, he had a revelation when he heard a preacher say that man's will is free, and something bothered him, but he didn't know what. That's when it all started. This dissatisfaction with the present understanding of determinism put him on a new course of reasoning, which led him to these incredible findings, along with his discovery regarding the eyes.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I asked. I wasn't asking you about Lessans or how you think he came to his conclusions. I was asking specifically about YOUR inconsistent approach to evidence. About the purely anecdotal and completely uncontrolled observations YOU specifically said should trump tests which you believe are inadequate because they are allegedly insufficiently controlled. More controls are needed! But only for refuting Lessans. For accepting his claims, no controls are required at all! That is bias, pure and simple.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I know dogs can't recognize photographs, just as I know that efferent vision requires the object to be in view.

But you don't. These are both just faith-based presupppositions for you. You have exactly ZERO rational grounds for accepting either of these claims.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think about this very carefully LadyShea, because you will not get it otherwise. Assuming it is true that the object is seen in real time, then doesn't it follow that the light that is revealing said object must also be at the film/retina in real time?

Yes, it does. And it also follows that if this light is neither newly existing nor stationary, then it must have gotten to the film somehow from somewhere else. So how about you think about this very carefully, and get back to us with an actual answer for how it does so?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Assuming it is true that we see in real time, the light -consisting of photons, that are physically existing particles subject to the laws of physics-, that is at the film/retina "in real time" has to come to be at that location by some physical mechanism.

What is the physical mechanism by which photons come to be at the same physical location as the film/retina?

You're still thinking in terms of light traveling with the information even if the object is not there. If you can't put that concept aside temporarily, because it's getting in the way, you're never going to understand how this is accomplished without violating the laws of physics.

[LadyShea]

You're still thinking in terms of light traveling with the information away from the object. If you can't put that concept aside because it's getting in the way, you're never going to understand how this is accomplished without violating the laws of physics.

I am asking about photons having locations and how they came to be at those locations. This is physics 101 stuff

I very carefully worded my question to you so as to remove any references to afferent or delayed time vision. So you are weaseling.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am asking about photons having locations and how they came to be at those locations. This is physics 101 stuff

I very carefully worded my question to you so as to remove any references to afferent or delayed time vision. So you are weaseling.

This is her mantra, LadyShea, she will ALWAYS fall back on it, dishonest that she is. She knows she has no physical mechanism to explain this non-existent miracle, and whenever she is asked to explain the mechanism, she will accuse her interlocutors of assuming afferent vision. It's a desperate attempt to change the subject, and to avoid admitting that under her own model, there is no physical mechanism to explain this miracle. But then, we all know that she is a dishonest, disgusting little

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Assuming it is true that we see in real time, the light -consisting of photons, that are physically existing particles subject to the laws of physics-, that is at the film/retina "in real time" has to come to be at that location by some physical mechanism.

What is the physical mechanism by which photons come to be at the same physical location as the film/retina?

The fact that the light we're using to see the object (assuming we're seeing in real time) is a necessary condition of sight, doesn't mean this light has to travel to Earth to reach the film/retina. The reason you're confused is because you're not understanding why this is so, which Lessans tried to explain. Remember, this (P) light is not what is traveling; it is revealing (but this doesn't mean the (N) light isn't traveling. Therefore when you're looking out at the world in real time, although the non-absorbed photons are constantly being replaced by the Sun's emissions, which continue traveling through space and time, the (P) light does not. The object is there only when we look at it due the inverse square law. When the (P) light is no longer at the film/retina[/B][/I], this means that it does not meet the requirements that allow an object to be seen (i.e., the object must be bright enough or close enough). When this occurs only white light is present and continues on. So when you ask me where are these photons, I explained that these blue photons (or non-absorbed light) are now back to being part of the full visual spectrum. You will not be able to understand how light works without a better understanding of efferent vision because the two go hand in hand.

[LadyShea]

The fact that the light that we're using to see the object (assuming we're seeing in real time) is a necessary condition of sight, but it doesn't have to travel to Earth to get to the film/retina. [snipped irrelevant weaseling]

To be compatible with the laws of physics, the light currently located at the film/retina had to come to be at that location by some physical mechanism.

Quit with the mealy mouthing and describe that mechanism, otherwise you do not have a model compatible with the simplest laws of physics.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still thinking in terms of light traveling with the information even if the object is not there. If you can't put that concept aside temporarily, because it's getting in the way, you're never going to understand how this is accomplished without violating the laws of physics.

The light at the film still has to get there somehow, even if the object has to be in range at that time as well. So all you are doing is weaselling. You haven't answered the question.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that the light we're using to see the object (assuming we're seeing in real time) is a necessary condition of sight, doesn't mean this light has to travel to Earth to reach the film/retina. The reason you're confused is because you're not understanding why this is so, which Lessans tried to explain.

If something exists at a given location, and neither came into existence there nor always existed in that location, then how can it be there without ever getting there?

It is not possible. And it is not just physically impossible - it is a logical contradiction - something that couldn't possibly be the case purely as a matter of meaning. That is why you cannot answer it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, this (P) light is not what is traveling; it is revealing (but this doesn't mean the (N) light isn't traveling. Therefore when you're looking out at the world in real time, although the non-absorbed photons are constantly being replaced by the Sun's emissions, which continue traveling through time and space, the (P) light does not. The object is there only when we look at it due the inverse square law. When the (P) light is no longer at the film/retina[/B][/I], this means that it does not meet the requirements (i.e., the object must be bright enough or close enough to be seen). When this happens only white light continues on. So when you ask me where are these non-absorbed photons, I explained that these photons are now back to being part of the full visual spectrum. You will not be able to understand how light works without a better understanding of efferent vision because the two go hand in hand.

So how did the (P)light at the film get there? Where was it 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, this has nothing to do with what I asked. I wasn't asking you about Lessans or how you think he came to his conclusions. I was asking specifically about YOUR inconsistent approach to evidence. About the purely anecdotal and completely uncontrolled observations YOU specifically said should trump tests which you believe are inadequate because they are allegedly insufficiently controlled. More controls are needed! But only for refuting Lessans. For accepting his claims, no controls are required at all! That is bias, pure and simple.

His observations were astute and his reasoning was sound because they were mathematical relations. That's why he said:

This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity.

If you don't think he has anything of value, you don't have to stick around. I'm not depending on you to understand this knowledge at all, so go your merry way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If something exists at a given location, and neither came into existence there nor always existed in that location, then how can it be there without ever getting there?

It is not possible. And it is not just physically impossible - it is a logical contradiction - something that couldn't possibly be the case purely as a matter of meaning. That is why you cannot answer it.

Somebody else is going to get involved because you're just not getting it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, this (P) light is not what is traveling; it is revealing (but this doesn't mean the (N) light isn't traveling. Therefore when you're looking out at the world in real time, although the non-absorbed photons are constantly being replaced by the Sun's emissions, which continue traveling through time and space, the (P) light does not. The object is there only when we look at it due the inverse square law. When the (P) light is no longer at the film/retina[/B][/I], this means that it does not meet the requirements (i.e., the object must be bright enough or close enough to be seen). When this happens only white light continues on. So when you ask me where are these non-absorbed photons, I explained that these photons are now back to being part of the full visual spectrum. You will not be able to understand how light works without a better understanding of efferent vision because the two go hand in hand.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So how did the (P)light at the film get there? Where was it 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken?

I just told you that if you don't understand how efferent vision works, and you keep thinking in terms of photons traveling (or bouncing off of objects) you will never get this because this concept works hand in hand with this version of sight.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations were astute and his reasoning was sound because they were mathematical relations. That's why he said:

This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity.

If you don't think he has anything of value, you don't have to stick around. I'm not depending on you to understand this knowledge at all, so go your merry way.

I'm not going anywhere. And why did you just change the subject again? I just explained quite clearly that I wasn't asking about Lessans or how he came to his conclusions. I've put the words in bold. I'll quote them again:

"I wasn't asking you about Lessans or how you think he came to his conclusions. I was asking specifically about YOUR inconsistent approach to evidence."

Did you not actually read my post? Or are you deliberately and dishonestly trying to avoid the point by changing the subject?