A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't accept a lot of things that are true because I don't want them to be true.

Wow. Is this what you meant to say?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your reasoning is never going to work because, like Spacemonkey, you are not viewing this in terms of the eyes looking out, which is efferent.

Can you explain why I should be thinking of how CAMERAS work in terms of the EYES looking out?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything you are basing your questions on refers to light traveling and arriving, which is afferent.

Are you saying that light never travels to and arrives at the film or retina in your efferent model? Then how does light ever get to be there? If you are not saying that, then there is nothing afferent about our asking you about the traveling or arriving light in your account. By dismissing such questions as afferent when they are not, you are only trying to avoid discussion of the parts of your non-model that make no sense and cannot possibly work.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

On YOUR EFFERENT ACCOUNT do the photons which you just agreed exist, also still exist at the times I am asking about?

Bump.

On YOUR EFFERENT ACCOUNT do the photons which you just agreed exist, also still exist at the times I am asking about?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then we can position the camera inside the range at which nonabsorbed light joins up with other light, such that the traveling nonabsorbed light will hit the camera film before this happens, and we can have nonabsorbed blue light traveling along from the blue object towards the camera, right? Then according to you the object can change color to red and yet this blue light will continue along still blue rather than red and will hit the film to produce a blue rather than a red image, right?

Bump.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In a previous post I pointed out to Dragar were she had answered that question in a response directed at you. You even thanked that post. Are you also suffering from a short term memory problem?

No, I wanted her to actually respond to me. I never know if she is being consistent with a position between posts.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I never know if she is being consistent with a position between posts.

The funny thing is it appears that after all the repetition from peacegirl you honestly do not know.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, I wanted her to actually respond to me. I never know if she is being consistent with a position between posts.

My apologies, for some reason I thought I was responding to Spacemonkey with that post. In any case, I don't think it is fair to require peacegirl (or any other poster) to answer the same question for each poster who asks it. If several posters ask the same question one answer ought to suffice for all.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In any case, I don't think it is fair to require peacegirl (or any other poster) to answer the same question for each poster who asks it. If several posters ask the same question one answer ought to suffice for all.

Then we have all been answered in spades. peacegirl will waffle on the details but she will not budge on anything else. By now I would have thought this was obvious.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

My apologies, for some reason I thought I was responding to Spacemonkey with that post. In any case, I don't think it is fair to require peacegirl (or any other poster) to answer the same question for each poster who asks it. If several posters ask the same question one answer ought to suffice for all.

Au Contraire, I think it is perfectly reasonable for each poster to expect a specific and personal response from Peacegirl ad nauseam. How else will anyone be able to authenticate and verify this very personal contact with Peacegirl after Lessans is recognized and validated as the Personal savior and benifactor of all mankind. Why a single authenticated printout of that response should be worth a pretty penny on EBay, but in Canada that may not be worth anything at all soon. So to all you posters out there, ask away and demand a specific answer to your specific question, she may someday actually give a sane and intelligent answer to something. Or am I asking too much?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your reasoning is never going to work because, like Spacemonkey, you are not viewing this in terms of the eyes looking out, which is efferent.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can you explain why I should be thinking of how CAMERAS work in terms of the EYES looking out?

You're still not getting it. If the object has to be in view for the eyes to see the world in real time, then the photograph that is taken with a camera uses the same exact light in the same exact way even though instead of seeing the object (because cameras don't have brains and eyes), the light from the object is instantly at the film. Light alone brings nothing to the film if there is no object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything you are basing your questions on refers to light traveling and arriving, which is afferent.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you saying that light never travels to and arrives at the film or retina in your efferent model? Then how does light ever get to be there?

Light is at the object. You have to think in terms of the box I gave as an example. Maybe that will help you think in terms of why the light is a mirror image. If you think in terms of the object and the observer being in the same space, you can more easily see why the light is already at the retina or film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you are not saying that, then there is nothing afferent about our asking you about the traveling or arriving light in your account. By dismissing such questions as afferent when they are not, you are only trying to avoid discussion of the parts of your non-model that make no sense and cannot possibly work.

No, it's not that I'm trying to avoid such questions. It's just that such questions are the complete opposite of what this model is trying to demonstrate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Possibly the truest words you have ever written.

We all at one time or another may find it hard to accept certain things because we don't want them to be true, but in this case the resistance to the truth is so strong, that people are making a big joke out of this claim, maybe as a defense mechanism, and they have a lot of camraderie. Whatever it is, they are not in service of truth. We seem to be in the violently opposed stage.

All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is
violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident.
Schopenhauer

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still not getting it. If the object has to be in view for the eyes to see the world in real time, then the photograph that is taken with a camera uses the same exact light in the same exact way even though instead of seeing the object (because cameras don't have brains and eyes), the light from the object is instantly at the film. Light alone brings nothing to the film if there is no object.

If the light works the same way for cameras as for vision, then WHAT WAY IS THAT? How does light from the object get to be instantly at the camera film without teleporting there or traveling there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is at the object. You have to think in terms of the box I gave as an example. Maybe that will help you think in terms of why the light is a mirror image. If you think in terms of the object and the observer being in the same space, you can more easily see why the light is already at the retina or film.

And how did it get there? How does light at the object get to be at the film? Is it in two places at once?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not that I'm trying to avoid such questions.

Then ANSWER them. How do red photons get to be at the camera film when at the immediately preceding moment there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We all at one time or another may find it hard to accept certain things because we don't want them to be true, but in this case the resistance is so strong because people don't want real time vision to be true, that they are making a big joke out of this claim, maybe as a protection.

Resistance is strong because the evidence flat-out refutes you. But as you yourself all but admitted, you can't accept that fact because YOU don't want it to be true.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light alone brings nothing to the film if there is no object.

The afferent model does not claim otherwise. Light does not bring anything other than itself to the film. No-one (but Lessans) has ever told you otherwise. Are you still imagining light carrying an image on the afferent account? As in "images on the wings of light"? How many times have you had it explained to you that this is not the case? What did Lessans do to you? Did he burn this ridiculous strawman into your cerebral cortex with lasers or something?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

My apologies, for some reason I thought I was responding to Spacemonkey with that post. In any case, I don't think it is fair to require peacegirl (or any other poster) to answer the same question for each poster who asks it. If several posters ask the same question one answer ought to suffice for all.

To be fair, it wasn't answering the substance of my question. She claims she was mistaken, but has really yet to address my point: why was she using these words when she so clearly does not understand them?

As for repeat questions, fair enough one some level. I consider peacegirl a rather singular case though.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything you are basing your questions on refers to light traveling and arriving, which is afferent.

Are you suggesting that every case of traveling light (Photons) is part of the afferent model, and in the efferent model light does something else. What about your example of the Sun being turned on at noon? Are we seeing the Sun instantly via efferent vision, but must wait 8.5 min. to see the person standing next to us afferently?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the light works the same way for cameras as for vision, then WHAT WAY IS THAT? How does light from the object get to be instantly at the camera film without teleporting there or traveling there?

And how did it get there? How does light at the object get to be at the film? Is it in two places at once?

It's not about the light getting there Spacemonkey. The light is already there because of how the EYES WORK. You have no idea how frustrating this is for me, because you're not listening.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not that I'm trying to avoid such questions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then ANSWER them. How do red photons get to be at the camera film when at the immediately preceding moment there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

I have, and have always continued to answer your questions, until I'm blue in the face but it won't matter as long as your premise starts out with light traveling to reach the eyes. This is NOT the efferent model whatsoever. This is a catastrophic failure to understand this demonstration, whether it is my failure or yours.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

then the photograph that is taken with a camera uses the same exact light in the same exact way even though instead of seeing the object the light from the object is instantly at the film.

When you say the exact same light, do you mean that the same photons are at the eye and the camera at the same time. That would mean that photons can be at 3 places at once (apparently they are still at the object as well). What if there were 10 people with cameras looking and taking pictured of the same object at once? That would mean that each photon could be at 21 places at once, or are all these eyes and cameras at the same place together with the object? That would be a very crowded place.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think in terms of the object and the observer being in the same space, you can more easily see why the light is already at the retina or film.

How can the observer and the object instantly be in the same place if they are miles appart? That would mean something or someone would need to telleport there and back again instantly. That could revolutionize the travel industry, we could be there just by looking at it. All that money NASA is spending is wasted. Or is it just the retina, that would be a stretch.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not about the light getting there Spacemonkey. The light is already there because of how the EYES WORK. You have no idea how frustrating this is for me, because you're not listening.

MY question IS about how the light gets there, and you have no answer. "Because of how the eyes work" is a non-answer that doesn't explain anything. That doesn't tell me how the light gets to the camera film in a scenario where there are no eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have, and have always continued to answer your questions, until I'm blue in the face but it won't matter as long as your premise starts out with light traveling to reach the eyes. This is NOT the efferent model whatsoever. This is a catastrophic failure to understand this demonstration, whether it is my failure or yours.

You are STILL not answering the question. Real-time photography requires a red photographic image to be possible at the very moment the ball first turns red. That requires red photons to be at the camera film before they've had time to travel from the now-red object to the camera. So how do red photons get to be at the camera film when at the immediately preceding moment there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have, and have always continued to answer your questions...

No, Peacegirl. You are not answering any of my questions. All you are doing is making excuses. Are you really so delusionally mentally ill that you can't see this, or are you just too pathologically dishonest to care?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Resistance is strong because the evidence flat-out refutes you. But as you yourself all but admitted, you can't accept that fact because YOU don't want it to be true.

Bullshit Spacemonkey! You can't accept that you're not as smart as Lessans. THAT'S WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, Peacegirl. You are not answering any of my questions. All you are doing is making excuses. Are you really so delusionally mentally ill that you can't see this, or are you just too pathologically dishonest to care?

You and David measured by your own standards should be put away in an institution. Is that what you want to hear? Well, that's what I have to say with all your bullshit about me being mentally ill. You're ego is ruining it for you because you have the intelligence, but it is not going to do you any good.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You and David measured by your own standards should be put away in an institution. Is that what you want to hear? Well, that's what I have to say with all your bullshit about me being mentally ill. You're ego is ruining it for you because you have the intelligence, but it is not going to do you any good.

Sorry Peacegirl, but I'm afraid it's true. You are not well. And you certainly aren't answering my questions. So you are either delusional in thinking that you have been answering them, or you were simply lying. Which was it?

I also think it is important for us to remind you every once in a while that everyone here thinks you're crazy, so that you can appreciate how completely crazy you must actually be to keep posting here. If we don't remind you of this, you only end up feeding your delusion further by fooling yourself into thinking that you're actually saying things which might be making sense to other people.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We all at one time or another may find it hard to accept certain things because we don't want them to be true, but in this case the resistance to the truth is so strong, that people are making a big joke out of this claim, maybe as a defense mechanism, and they have a lot of camraderie. Whatever it is, they are not in service of truth. We seem to be in the violently opposed stage.

All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is
violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident.
Schopenhauer

She is so deranged she can't stop lying even about trivial things.

As has already been pointed out to her, Schopenhauer never said this. Yet she keeps quoting him saying something he never said.

Also, the quote, regardless of who said it, is demonstrably untrue.

Finally, peacegirl, you have no "truth." Lessans' great work is a pile of gibberish, as has been proven by now hundreds of times.