A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

his first discovery is the only thing left that I am interested in discussing.

Then present your ideas, no-one is stopping you. If you are waiting for someone to ask a question or make a comment, how can they if you have not presented anything. And don't just copy-paste the book and expect every one to jump on, YOU explain it in your own words as best you can and be ready to expand and correct if necessary.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then present your ideas, no-one is stopping you. If you are waiting for someone to ask a question or make a comment, how can they if you have not presented anything. And don't just copy-paste the book and expect every one to jump on, YOU explain it in your own words as best you can and be ready to expand and correct if necessary.

Sure, peacegirl just needs to express herself in a consistent, logical and rational way. As if the last 20,000 posts never happened. And the horse will sing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Have you tried this yet, peacegirl? If you have, what were the results?

I am actually not interested in hearing any more results that would prove Lessans wrong, not because I'm in denial, but because the test to prove him wrong, is inaccurate. When you talk about mirrors, do you actually think this proves Lessans wrong when I have said all along that mirrors are only a projection of what already exists? You really should be laughing at yourself Angakuk for spreading your wings in pride when you have nothing to be proud about.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said all along that mirrors are only a projection of what already exists?

What "already exists" that the mirror projects in the scenario Angakuk offered?

Go into a darkened room. Take a mirror and flashlight with you. Position the mirror so that it is facing a blank wall a foot or so distant from the mirror. Shine the flashlight at the mirror. Observe the spot of light that appears on the wall opposite the mirror.

What is the spot of light in your opinion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What "already exists" that the mirror projects in the scenario Angakuk offered?

What is the spot of light in your opinion?

I have no idea what you mean by the spot of light. It doesn't even make sense to me but maybe I missed something. The entire mapping of what is out there in the external world is reflected on our retina, or film. To try to answer you logically will only get me in trouble, as we have seen, and make me look like a crackpot, which you all want (because it will eliminate the need to look at what's really going on). Interestingly enough, the light that shines through pots are cracked. I don't mind being a cracked pot. Just remember that.

[LadyShea]

I don't think you understand the scale of size and distance that exists in the Universe peacegirl, otherwise you might abandon the shoebox analogy.

If you enlarged a single hydrogen atom so that the proton/nucleus was the size of a basketball the electron would be about 20 miles away...that means the atom would be 20 miles in diameter and mostly space.



Distance is distance and relative to size, no matter how small or large you scale it

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea what you mean by the spot of light. It doesn't even make sense to me but maybe I missed something.

What part of the scenario is confusing to you?

If you shine a light at a mirror in a dark room, a spot of light will appear on the wall opposite the mirror as per the laws of reflection.

This spot is nothing but reflected light according to optics.

You seem to disagree and said "mirrors are only a projection of what already exists". So in the scenario what is the spot of light? A "projection of what already exists" doesn't provide an answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The entire mapping of what is out there in the external world is reflected on our retina, or film.

What do you mean by "mapping"?
"Reflected on our retina or film" by what physical mechanism?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To try to answer you logically will only get me in trouble

Yes, because you do not have a possible, let alone plausible, model because models include mechanisms.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Interestingly enough, the light that shines through pots are cracked

Um, this makes no grammatical sense. What did you mean to say this time?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Sure, peacegirl just needs to express herself in a consistent, logical and rational way. As if the last 20,000 posts never happened. And the horse will sing.

I don't care how she expresses herself, I would just prefer that she stop whining about not being able to post her non-discovery.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, this makes no grammatical sense. What did you mean to say this time?

Grammatical? It doesn't make any sense at all. Is she saying the light is cracked? We already think she is.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea what you mean by the spot of light.

Willful ignorance at it's best.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, this makes no grammatical sense. What did you mean to say this time?

peacegirl is making a clever self reference.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I don't care how she expresses herself, I would just prefer that she stop whining about not being able to post her non-discovery.

She can either whine or quote Lessons and everything else comes out as gibberish.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Sure, peacegirl just needs to express herself in a consistent, logical and rational way. As if the last 20,000 posts never happened. And the horse will sing.

OK, hit it,

The Empty Feed Bag Blues - YouTube

&feature=related

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

She can either whine or quote Lessons and everything else comes out as gibberish.

What do you mean 'everything else', with Peacegirl it's all gibberish, but at least it will be different gibberish.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't think you understand the scale of size and distance that exists in the Universe peacegirl, otherwise you might abandon the shoebox analogy.

If you enlarged a single hydrogen atom so that the proton/nucleus was the size of a basketball the electron would be about 20 miles away...that means the atom would be 20 miles in diameter and mostly space.



Distance is distance and relative to size, no matter how small or large you scale it

Thanks for the diagram, but the shoebox analogy was just that; an analogy. I was hoping you could see that the enormity of an object's size or distance cannot determined by sight alone, although the actual distance and size can be measured using the speed of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, this makes no grammatical sense. What did you mean to say this time?

It is a play on words. Sometimes what people see as having no value (such as a pot that is old and cracked; hence a cracked pot) can spread more light (knowledge) than a pot that has no cracks. People look at Lessans as a crackpot, or cracked pot, but as you can see truth comes from unexpected sources.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for the diagram, but the shoebox analogy was just that; an analogy. I was hoping you could see that the enormity of an object's size or distance cannot determined by sight alone, although the actual distance and size can be measured using the speed of light.

So are you suggesting (again) that visual distance is different than actual distance?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was hoping you could see that the enormity of an object's size or distance cannot determined by sight alone

Why? Who did you think was failing to "see" that? Nobody has said anything about determining size or distance by sight alone. That's an absurd proposition, one I don't remember being made, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a saying. Sometimes what people see as having no value (such as a pot that is old and cracked; hence a cracked pot) can spread more light (knowledge) than a pot that has no cracks. People look at Lessans as a crackpot, or cracked pot, but as you can see truth comes from unexpected sources.

People usually put water in a pot, not a lamp, and the water would leak out of a cracked pot, so your example is just as mixed up as you and Lessans. Why don't you start by showing us something of value from Lessans book?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What part of the scenario is confusing to you?

If you shine a light at a mirror in a dark room, a spot of light will appear on the wall opposite the mirror as per the laws of reflection.

This spot is nothing but reflected light according to optics.

Where is this in opposition to anything I've said? Think of the wall as the retina. The light that is at the wall is present because the actual spot is present. If the spot is gone, so will the reflection on the wall.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You seem to disagree and said "mirrors are only a projection of what already exists". So in the scenario what is the spot of light? A "projection of what already exists" doesn't provide an answer.

I don't know what the spot of light is. It could be a smudge on the mirror that shows up on the wall as a spot. Whatever it is, it has to be coming from something in the material world because photons merely reflect what exists.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The entire mapping of what is out there in the external world is reflected on our retina, or film.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean by "mapping"?
"Reflected on our retina or film" by what physical mechanism?

This goes back to the requirements of efferent vision, and whether the eyes or film can actually interact with light under these conditions. Mapping is just another way of saying that whatever is on the screen of the material world (as we look out in real time) will show up as an identical image on the retina or film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To try to answer you logically will only get me in trouble

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, because you do not have a possible, let alone plausible, model because models include mechanisms.

I can only give you his observations. The mechanism goes back to how the brain and eyes work, which, if true, allow the light to show up on the retina instantly because the requirements for this interaction to take place between the retina and light, or film and light, have been met. You say this is impossible. I say it's not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why? Who did you think was failing to "see" that? Nobody has said anything about determining size or distance by sight alone. That's an absurd proposition, one I don't remember being made, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I just meant that seeing an object because it meets the requirements of size and brightness, and processing that information in the visual cortex in order to interpret how far away an object really is, are two different things.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is this in opposition to anything I've said? Think of the wall as the retina. The light that is at the wall is present because the actual spot is present. If the spot is gone, so will the reflection on the wall.

The spot is the reflected light.

What you are actually saying in the bolded sentences is:

The light that is at the wall is present because the light that is at the wall is present. If the light on the wall is gone so will the reflected light on the wall

Is that what you mean, or are you still confused by the simple experiment you can do with a penlight and a mirror? Why you would rather look completely retarded and crazy rather than do a simple experiment is only attributable to your adherence to Lessans on faith alone...nothing else makes any sense whatsoever.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what the spot of light is.

What on Earth are you talking about? It's a spot of reflected light, you can move it around because the angle of reflection changes as you move the mirror or the light source. You can do this yourself right now if you have a dark room and a hand mirror. Millions of children throughout history have played with reflected light spots and are aware of the basic laws of physics easily demonstrated with simple household items.

It doesn't even need to be a dark room, you can do the same thing using the sun coming in a window as your light source and aim the reflection at an inside wall. It's not as dramatic, but it's entirely possible, because these are laws of physics at play here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It could be a smudge on the mirror that shows up on the wall as a spot. Whatever it is, it has to be coming from something in the material world because photons merely reflect what exists.

You are just being purposefully idiotic now. Nobody can be actually this stupid and live.

If you aim the reflection spot at a book or piece of paper that's been written on you can READ by the reflected light for goodness sake. A smudge couldn't somehow produce light bright enough to read by.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This goes back to the requirements of efferent vision, and whether the eyes or film can actually interact with light under these conditions. Mapping is just another way of saying that whatever is on the screen of the material world (as we look out in real time) will show up as an identical image on the retina or film.

By what mechanism?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can only give you his observations. The mechanism goes back to how the brain and eyes work, which, if true, allow the light to show up on the retina instantly because the requirements for this interaction to take place between the retina and light, or film and light, have been met. You say this is impossible. I say it's not.

No such allowance exists in the current laws of physics. It is impossible because it is not possible unless there are different laws of physics than the ones we know of. So, are you going to admit that the laws of physics need to be changed for Lessans to be correct?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just meant that seeing an object because it meets the requirements of size and brightness, and processing that information in the visual cortex in order to interpret how far away an object really is, are two different things.

So? What did that have anything to do with the scenarios presented or the points made about physical mechanisms for photons coming to be at specific locations?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what the spot of light is. It could be a smudge on the mirror that shows up on the wall as a spot. Whatever it is, it has to be coming from something in the material world because photons merely reflect what exists.

L.O.L. the (P) 'willful ignorance' just keeps getting better, these need to be collected for posterity. Without collected evidence no-one will believe that anyone could be this stupid on purpose. Lessans has so twisted and tangled her brain, so that no argument in the world is going to untie that knothead. Lessans must have really hated her, maybe he wanted a child with a normal brain. Instead he got 'Abbey Normal'.