A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the light can reach the retina without traveling the intervening distance, then it has teleported.

No Spacemonkey. You're obviously not grasping the concept.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have yourself a real catch 22 here. You do not want to turn them off, and yet you want them to endorse the book, which means they will have to read it. Tall order.

Of course I want them to read the book. I might just send them the mp3 first. It's not as long and it is Lessans speaking. You don't even understand marketing, do you? I don't want to come off too strong in a letter. I want to capture their interest, and I know what it sounds like when some stranger on the internet starts making huge claims. I have to be careful how I present myself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you posted both of the following two contradictory claims less than three hours apart:

Get help Peacegirl. You are not well.

Unless you repeat the question leaving out the second part, I'm opting out. You are a clone of NA. I can't stomach him so now I'm beginning to not stomach you either.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't even understand marketing, do you?

LOL

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Teleportation is when a photon is at two places at the same time

No, teleporting is not being 'two places at the same time', it is being one place one instant and another place the next instant, without phisically traveling the distance between.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

and you don't think this is slander?

Of course not. Slander has to be false.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Speak for yourself Spacemonkey. You don't know what is in the minds of everyone here, nor do you know every person who is listening in and why they are here. You are taking it upon yourself to judge not only my motives but everyone else's.

Don't be ridiculous. You've admitted yourself that you are wasting your time here and that you know no-one here considers Lessans' ravings to be of any (non-comedic) value.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't even understand marketing, do you?

, and I know what it sounds like when some stranger on the internet starts making huge claims.

L.O.L. Do you think you understand marketing? How is that working for you? How many books have you sold in the 10 years you've been on the internet? L.O.L.

Do you really think Lessans reading his own book will not sound like some strange person making huge claims? Are you going to provide special glasses so people can hear it properly.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I'm not making the same errors over and over again.

Yes, you are. You do it again in this very post. I'll wager you don't recall being corrected before on what teleporation means. Do you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you better be careful about how you address me because I will put you on ignore. You seem to have a need to put me down. If you think this is going to motivate me, you're wrong.

I'm not trying to motivate you. I'm trying to draw your attention to the undeniable evidence of your own mental illness. I'm not trying to insult you with this. I'm absolutely serious.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Teleportation is when a photon is at two places at the same time...

No, it is not. That is not what teleportation is. And you've made this exact same mistake before, and been corrected on it before. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said you keep repeating the same mistakes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but I already explained that light energy is always being emitted and replacing the non-absorbed light. That is what travels, but the non-absorbed light that splits when the object absorbs the other colors of the visual spectrum, does not travel.

It travels, it doesn't travel, it travels, it doesn't travel... Do you have any idea how many times you've reversed your position and contradicted yourself on this one point alone?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still imagining that light has to travel long distances, therefore we cannot be seeing the object in real time. But you are, once again, not thinking in terms of efferent vision. I will repeat: If the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen by the eyes, then that changes the physics involved.

So you admit your account violates physics? If no light has yet reached the Earth, then how can there be a mirror image consisting of light at the retina to interact with it? If the non-absorbed light does not travel, does not stay there at rest, and does not teleport, then what does it do? When the ball first becomes red, how can red photons (which are only just beginning to not be absorbed at the ball's surface) be instantly at the camera film without traveling there and without teleporting?

You really are mentally ill. If you don't believe me, then get someone you trust to read over this thread and talk to you about it. The best thing you could possibly do is to stop posting here and seek treatment. You owe it to yourself and to your father to at least investigate the possibility that everyone telling you that you are unwell just might possibly be right.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey. You're obviously not grasping the concept.

You are wrong. What I said was true by definition. It is what 'teleport' means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/teleport?s=t

teleport (ˈtɛlɪˌpɔːt)

— vb
( tr ) (in science fiction) to transport (a person or object) across a distance instantaneously

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course not. Slander has to be false.

Well you are both wrong, it doesn't matter if it is true or false what appears on the computer screen is not legally 'slander', I don't hear anything. However it may legally be 'libel' (your Liability insurance doesn't cover it) but then, as Spacemonkey says, it would need to be false, and it must not be expressed as his opinion. Spacemonkey can express any opinion he wants and it is not 'Libel'.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unless you repeat the question leaving out the second part, I'm opting out. You are a clone of NA. I can't stomach him so now I'm beginning to not stomach you either.

What on Earth are you even talking about? I wasn't asking you a question. I was presenting your directly contradictory comments posted only hours apart as evidence of your mental illness. Sane people don't do this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course not. Slander has to be false.

Exactly, and you are putting the cart before the horse in defense of your airtight proof of nothing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Speak for yourself Spacemonkey. You don't know what is in the minds of everyone here, nor do you know every person who is listening in and why they are here. You are taking it upon yourself to judge not only my motives but everyone else's.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Don't be ridiculous. You've admitted yourself that you are wasting your time here and that you know no-one here considers Lessans' ravings to be of any (non-comedic) value.

No I haven't.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I want them to read the book. I might just send them the mp3 first. It's not as long and it is Lessans speaking. You don't even understand marketing, do you? I don't want to come off too strong in a letter. I want to capture their interest, and I know what it sounds like when some stranger on the internet starts making huge claims. I have to be careful how I present myself.

The book does make grandiose claims though. I do not think that listening to it in stead of reading it will make much of a difference. And the grandiose claims are not even your biggest problem.

Unless you repackage this as new age philosophy, drop the whole section about sight, and try to reduce the condescending and self-congratulatory tone of the book this will not go anywhere. Even piles of nonsense like The Secret and Dianetics manage to at least appeal to people.

You can fail to make a logically coherent argument and still sell books. You can have a style that people tend to dislike reading and still sell books. But you cannot do both and still sell books.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What on Earth are you even talking about? I wasn't asking you a question. I was presenting your directly contradictory comments posted only hours apart as evidence of your mental illness. Sane people don't do this.

You're on a one way ticket out. And you are too dumb to change your tactics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are wrong. What I said was true by definition. It is what 'teleport' means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/teleport?s=t

teleport (ˈtɛlɪˌpɔːt)

— vb
( tr ) (in science fiction) to transport (a person or object) across a distance instantaneously

After all this time do you actually think this is what I'm saying?

World English Dictionary
teleport (ˈtɛlɪˌpɔːt)

— vb
( tr ) (in science fiction) to transport (a person or object) across a distance instantaneously

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can light be interacting with the retina without actually being at the retina? How can light be at the retina as soon as the Sun is turned on? Light getting from one place to another instantly and without traveling the intervening distance is teleportation.

I refuse to talk to you unless you stop imitating NA, otherwise I'm putting you on ignore. It's as simple as that. I don't think you understand my seriousness.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL

That is grave news indeed. This is a major handicap to me, as Mrs Sectus runs a business that sells advertising and marketing services. I will be forced to inform her that I can no longer pitch in and will be forced to go hiking with the dogs in stead from this day forward.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well you are both wrong, it doesn't matter if it is true or false what appears on the computer screen is not legally 'slander', I don't hear anything. However it may legally be 'libel' (your Liability insurance doesn't cover it) but then, as Spacemonkey says, it would need to be false, and it must not be expressed as his opinion. Spacemonkey can express any opinion he wants and it is not 'Libel'.

And in order for peacegirl to make her case she would have to submit this thread as evidence. I don't think she would want to do that. She may end up a ward of the court.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think you understand my seriousness.

Because serious people repeatedly make threats instead of just acting.

If you ignored everyone you threatened to ignore, you would be talking to yourself.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

After all this time do you actually think this is what I'm saying?

World English Dictionary
teleport (ˈtɛlɪˌpɔːt)

— vb
( tr ) (in science fiction) to transport (a person or object) across a distance instantaneously

You just said yesterday that you think teleporting means a photon being in two places at once. So now do you understand what it actually means?

Does the "mirror image" located "at the retina" consist of photons? Yes/No

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because serious people repeatedly make threats instead of just acting.

If you ignored everyone you threatened to ignore, you would be talking to yourself.

She may not be able to tell the difference.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was right in what he was trying to explain. He was trying to show that we are not receiving signals from the optic nerve that allow the brain to interpret the image, which is what a "sense organ" is supposed to do, by definition. You can make an issue over this to your heart's content. It doesn't invalidate the claim.

His claim of there being no afferent nerves in the human visual organs was wrong.

The optic nerve, being afferent, sends impulses from the eye to the brain, which you admitted.

That is what sense organs do, therefore the eyes are a sense organ.

His claim is invalidated

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I do not think that listening to it in stead of reading it will make much of a difference.

If I could hear Lessans for free, I would. I'd love to hear the humility, reason and intelligence pouring out of the speakers. That, and hearing him say "Quote" and "Unquote."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly, and you are putting the cart before the horse in defense of your airtight proof of nothing.

Not at all. I am posting evidence for my claim that you are clearly mentally ill.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I haven't.

Yes you have. See below. You should really stop trusting your own memory for what you have said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing more I can say that will change anything at this point. I am hoping that people will, at the very least, understand the plausibility of this concept. I doubt that they will even accept that. It is going to be up to science to take the lead and do more empirical testing, if they choose to. I am offering something that I believe is true, and all of the put downs won't change a thing IF Lessans was right. I am wasting a lot of time here. I hope I leave you with a suspicion that he could be right. If not, oh well. That was my goal, and I achieved it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're on a one way ticket out. And you are too dumb to change your tactics.

Can you explain your above quoted contradictory claims? Can you explain why they should not be considered evidence of mental dysfunction?