A revolution in thought - Page 696

peacegirl · #**17376** 05-24-2012, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't become anything LadyShea. You are again focusing on light, as if light does something that is different than what its properties actually are. It is the eyes that capture the light, which provides a mirror image because of what the ability of the brain, looking through the eyes, can do, which then extends to cameras because it's the same phenomenon regardless.

The question was what does nonabsorbed light do after hitting an object when no-one is looking at it.

Why does your answer yet again involve eyes and the brain?

Making this mistake once would be odd. Doing it over and over again over a period of not only months but years suggests something far more serious.

You know what, go talk to NA and thedoc. Don't talk to me. Your nasty attitude is getting deplorable.

davidm · #**17377** 05-24-2012, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I love how the Jabbering Buffoon says scientists "took it for granted" that the eyes are a sense organ. I guess the shit head was in the pool hall and had already dropped out of the seventh grade when his teachers were explaining the mountains of empirical evidence, research, dissection, etc. etc. etc. of the eyes, and untold numbers of experiments and investigations into the nature of light that established that the eye is a sense organ and we see in delayed-time. All of these researches, of course, are the very opposite of "taking it for granted."

My God, was he a buffoon. :foocl:

Oh shut up David with your vitriol. You are the buffoon and one day your degrading posts will be here for all to see. Afferent vision has definitely been taken for granted. Because the eyes looked like they fit the classification of sense, and because no one had any reasons not to believe that this was the way the eyes worked, it would have been an easy mistake to make.

So are you saying, you simpering little fool, that no one has ever studied the eye, to see what it does and how it works?

Did you read The Lone Ranger's essay, which explains how the eye works down to the atomic level?

:lol:

So are YOU saying, you wimpering little weasel, that there's nothing left to learn about the brain? I'll ask Ben Carson what he thinks about that. :eek:

No, asshat, there is a lot to learn about the brain. That is not the point. The point is that your buffoon of a father said scientists assumed that vision was afferent. And the question for your sorry, impertinent little ass is: Did you read The Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight? Of course you didn't. Because had you done so, you would have learned that NOTHING was assumed, and that scientists have been painstakingly studying light and vision for hundreds of years, and every discovery they have ever made proves your idiot father to be wrong. :wave:

I'm tired of the name calling so I'm going to reflect your words right back to you and lower myself to your non-existing standards of fair discussion. No asshat, it does not prove the direction the brain sees, even if there are afferent nerve fibers which are necessary in connecting the external world to the internal world.

If your had read the essay, dumb fuck, you would know that there are no efferent nerves in the optic system at all. Rendering your father a buffoon, and his claims manifestly false.

Now than: Why does NASA use delayed-time seeing in calculating how to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial locations? Got an answer, or not? Not, of course! :lol:

If you were an honest person, which you are not, you would concede that Lessans was wrong. But you are dishonest to the core.

davidm · #**17378** 05-24-2012, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't become anything LadyShea. You are again focusing on light, as if light does something that is different than what its properties actually are. It is the eyes that capture the light, which provides a mirror image because of what the ability of the brain, looking through the eyes, can do, which then extends to cameras because it's the same phenomenon regardless.

The question was what does nonabsorbed light do after hitting an object when no-one is looking at it.

Why does your answer yet again involve eyes and the brain?

Making this mistake once would be odd. Doing it over and over again over a period of not only months but years suggests something far more serious.

You know what, go talk to NA and thedoc. Don't talk to me. Your nasty attitude is getting deplorable.

Can't answer the question, eh? :lol:

Spacemonkey · #**17379** 05-24-2012, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't become anything LadyShea. You are again focusing on light, as if light does something that is different than what its properties actually are. It is the eyes that capture the light, which provides a mirror image because of what the ability of the brain, looking through the eyes, can do, which then extends to cameras because it's the same phenomenon regardless.

The question was what does nonabsorbed light do after hitting an object when no-one is looking at it.

Why does your answer yet again involve eyes and the brain?

Making this mistake once would be odd. Doing it over and over again over a period of not only months but years suggests something far more serious.

You know what, go talk to NA and thedoc. Don't talk to me. Your nasty attitude is getting deplorable.

Why aren't you concerned about your own mental state? Don't you find it odd how you keep repeating the same mistakes and contradicting your own words? For instance why did you try to answer a question about what happens when an object is NOT looked at by speaking of brains and eyes? Doesn't that strike you as odd behavior?

Spacemonkey · #**17380** 05-24-2012, 10:15 PM

When you refuse to answer any of my questions, you leave me with nothing to discuss but your dysfunctional mental state.

LadyShea · #**17381** 05-24-2012, 10:17 PM

Quote:

IT DIDN'T HAVE TO GET ANYWHERE!!! You are in afferent mode.

If light is at a specific location it had to get there by some mechanism. That's not the afferent model, that's just the properties of light.

peacegirl · #**17382** 05-24-2012, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Is this "germinal substance" inherited from both parents or only one of them?

If it's inherited from only one parent, is it inherited from the mother or the father?

Lone Ranger, all he meant by "germinal substance" is the substance that we're all derived from, as I've already expressed. A and B, which represent the sperm and the ovum, don't die even though C, which represents the individuality of each person at birth, does die. I can't believe I'm doing this but I will post one excerpt from this chapter, but whether you like it or don't like it, understand it or don't understand it, tell me its nothing but crap, please let's not discuss this right now because one question leads to another, and this chapter is not what I came here to discuss. Lessans knew the importance of his third discovery, which is why he wrote the following:

Before I discuss the educational system in the new world and how
it will drastically change the way children learn, I shall reveal my final
discovery which will absolutely shock all mankind. In fact, I consider
it the most important discovery ever made on our planet, and it will
make you very happy. It is not easy to follow the reasoning but take
your time, and you will understand.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: Our Posterity pp. 497-498

Because you
are conscious of your existence and individuality during those years in
the present, write a book, build a home, make a lot of friends who cry
when you die, doesn’t take away from the fact that you are a
combination of A and B which continues in existence even while you
are alive, and regardless of what happens to C. Consequently, the
consciousness of your individuality without understanding that you
are not only C, which represents the hereditary differences that die,
but the germinal substance A and B which never die because they are
carried along from generation to generation and when united develop
into your existence, makes you perceive an improper relation. Simply
because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived.

Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born.

naturalist.atheist · #**17383** 05-24-2012, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't become anything LadyShea. You are again focusing on light, as if light does something that is different than what its properties actually are. It is the eyes that capture the light, which provides a mirror image because of what the ability of the brain, looking through the eyes, can do, which then extends to cameras because it's the same phenomenon regardless.

The question was what does nonabsorbed light do after hitting an object when no-one is looking at it.

Why does your answer yet again involve eyes and the brain?

Making this mistake once would be odd. Doing it over and over again over a period of not only months but years suggests something far more serious.

You know what, go talk to NA and thedoc. Don't talk to me. Your nasty attitude is getting deplorable.

She likes any kind of attention except genuine concern about her mental health. My guess is there is history there and it's a sore spot.

naturalist.atheist · #**17384** 05-24-2012, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I love how the Jabbering Buffoon says scientists "took it for granted" that the eyes are a sense organ. I guess the shit head was in the pool hall and had already dropped out of the seventh grade when his teachers were explaining the mountains of empirical evidence, research, dissection, etc. etc. etc. of the eyes, and untold numbers of experiments and investigations into the nature of light that established that the eye is a sense organ and we see in delayed-time. All of these researches, of course, are the very opposite of "taking it for granted."

My God, was he a buffoon. :foocl:

Oh shut up David with your vitriol. You are the buffoon and one day your degrading posts will be here for all to see. Afferent vision has definitely been taken for granted. Because the eyes looked like they fit the classification of sense, and because no one had any reasons not to believe that this was the way the eyes worked, it would have been an easy mistake to make.

So are you saying, you simpering little fool, that no one has ever studied the eye, to see what it does and how it works?

Did you read The Lone Ranger's essay, which explains how the eye works down to the atomic level?

:lol:

So are YOU saying, you wimpering little weasel, that there's nothing left to learn about the brain? I'll ask Ben Carson what he thinks about that. :eek:

No, asshat, there is a lot to learn about the brain. That is not the point. The point is that your buffoon of a father said scientists assumed that vision was afferent. And the question for your sorry, impertinent little ass is: Did you read The Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight? Of course you didn't. Because had you done so, you would have learned that NOTHING was assumed, and that scientists have been painstakingly studying light and vision for hundreds of years, and every discovery they have ever made proves your idiot father to be wrong. :wave:

I'm tired of the name calling so I'm going to reflect your words right back to you and lower myself to your non-existing standards of fair discussion. No asshat, it does not prove the direction the brain sees, even if there are afferent nerve fibers which are necessary in connecting the external world to the internal world.

peacegirl, save yourself some time, just use: :asshat:

The Lone Ranger · #**17385** 05-24-2012, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You talk about physics, and I'm talking about the brain. You don't seem to understand the mechanism because you're not grasping the concept whatsoever.

The brain is no less subject to the laws of physics than is anything else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Is this "germinal substance" inherited from both parents or only one of them?

If it's inherited from only one parent, is it inherited from the mother or the father?

Lone Ranger, all he meant by "germinal substance" is the substance that we're all derived from, as I've already expressed. A and B, which represent the sperm and the ovum, don't die even though C, which represents the individuality of each person at birth, does die.

Spermatozoa don't enter ova. The only thing the spermatozoan contributes to you is 23 of your 46 chromosomes.

So, your "germinal substance" is evidently DNA. (DNA is not alive, incidentally.) Since we have completely sequenced the human genome, perhaps you'd care to say which of the approximately 35,000 human genes represents the "germinal substance"?

peacegirl · #**17386** 05-24-2012, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

IT DIDN'T HAVE TO GET ANYWHERE!!! You are in afferent mode.

If light is at a specific location it had to get there by some mechanism. That's not the afferent model, that's just the properties of light.

Just know that light travels. I never said it didn't. I can't make you understand this model of sight. It might take time for it to sink in or maybe it never will. I hope that you eventually get an aha moment.

Spacemonkey · #**17387** 05-24-2012, 10:25 PM

Have you noticed how many people you have now convinced here that Lessans was a crackpot and that you are mentally ill?

Do you realize that after over a year, this is the only thing you've achieved here?

naturalist.atheist · #**17388** 05-24-2012, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you really just here for the attention?

No, but you are. You want to be known as the king of philosophical thought and it disturbs you that you can't get me to admit that you are, in fact, king. :eek:

All I want is for you to stop weaseling and answer my questions. Why are you here now that you are refusing to answer questions or discuss either of your father's two non-discoveries? Is it just the attention?

The intimidation in here is supposed to scare me away? I'll go when I'm good and ready. The truth is you don't deserve my time and attention because your attitude is deplorable. NA, thedoc, and Davidm have brainwashed you. You imitate NA exactly. :yup:

You flatter me peacegirl, however I'm pretty sure nobody here wishes to imitate me. Spacemonkey and others have arrived at their own conclusions based on your posts. It's been obvious for a long time that you are suffering from cognitive dysfunction in basic reasoning and memory. Add to that the misinformation from Lessans and you get a very screwed up peacegirl.

LadyShea · #**17389** 05-24-2012, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

IT DIDN'T HAVE TO GET ANYWHERE!!! You are in afferent mode.

If light is at a specific location it had to get there by some mechanism. That's not the afferent model, that's just the properties of light.

Just know that light travels. I never said it didn't.

So reflected light travels from the object to the camera film?

Spacemonkey · #**17390** 05-24-2012, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

IT DIDN'T HAVE TO GET ANYWHERE!!! You are in afferent mode.

If light is at a specific location it had to get there by some mechanism. That's not the afferent model, that's just the properties of light.

Just know that light travels. I never said it didn't. I can't make you understand this model of sight. It might take time for it to sink in or maybe it never will. I hope that you eventually get an aha moment.

Aha! You are completely out of your mind.

What exactly are you expecting to 'sink in'? There is no model, no mechanism, and no answer to any of the things you are being asked, so there is nothing that even could 'sink in' to improve our understanding. There is nothing to understand, because you don't even understand it yourself.

LadyShea · #**17391** 05-24-2012, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

She likes any kind of attention except genuine concern about her mental health. My guess is there is history there and it's a sore spot.

I hadn't even thought of that, and it makes a lot of sense.

peacegirl · #**17392** 05-24-2012, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

You talk about physics, and I'm talking about the brain. You don't seem to understand the mechanism because you're not grasping the concept whatsoever.

The brain is no less subject to the laws of physics than is anything else.

This phenomenon does not violate the laws of physics, but it does change the role of light in the sense that light does not have to travel to us to receive the image if Lessans is right, which I believe he is. We see the image because light reveals the real object to us. This is clearly due to how our brain works in relation to the eyes, and for no other reason, so when people say to leave out the eyes, this is insane. Lessans made a discovery about the eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Is this "germinal substance" inherited from both parents or only one of them?

If it's inherited from only one parent, is it inherited from the mother or the father?

Lone Ranger, all he meant by "germinal substance" is the substance that we're all derived from, as I've already expressed. A and B, which represent the sperm and the ovum, don't die even though C, which represents the individuality of each person at birth, does die.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Spermatozoa don't enter ova. The only thing the spermatozoan contributes to you is 23 of your 46 chromosomes.

Where did I say that? All I said is that we're derived from substance A and B, which comes from both parents, and this substance which is contained in the testes of the male and the ovaries of the female, is carried along from generation to generation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, your "germinal substance" is evidently DNA. (DNA is not alive, incidentally.) Since we have completely sequenced the human genome, perhaps you'd care to say which of the approximately 35,000 human genes represents the "germinal substance"?

You can call it whatever you want. The point he was making is that this genetic substance is passed down from parents to children. Within this germinal substance is the potential for life; it is not just C, which is the individual who is born from the meeting of a particular sperm and egg.

naturalist.atheist · #**17393** 05-24-2012, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

IT IS TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS THAT THE EYES ARE A SENSE ORGAN. JUST BECAUSE HE USED THIS AS AN EXAMPLE DOES NOT MEAN THE POINT OF HIS EXAMPLE IS WRONG!!!! YOU ARE THINKING IN SUCH CONCRETE TERMS? YOU HAVE TO THINK ABSTRACTLY.

Lessans statement that "Scientists claim an observer on Rigel would see Columbus discovering America", was not presented as an abstract example or hypothetical but as a fact, verified by a "science teacher" and "encyclopedias".

Presenting hypotheticals and made up examples as verifiable facts, and stating that conversations actually took place when they were, in truth, imaginary is lying.

The example of Rigel and Columbus was just that, an example. This is exactly what scientists are saying, even to this day. You can't stop from making these meaningless accusations, can you? Maybe he didn't express the concept to your liking, but this doesn't change the validity of the concept. Here is what he said for those who never read it:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality: pp. 119-120

Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope? Let me show you how confused these scientists are.

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away.

If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in
the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An
image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because
the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with
the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen.

The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon,
the sun, and the distant stars.

This truly is one of the stupidest things ever written, and I laughed all over again when reading the buffoon, particularly his charming bluster. ("Let me show you how confused these scientists are.")

:foocl:

Thanks for sharing again, peacegirl. You really should put The Great Man's work back online. It is a never-ending source of entertainment.

It's easy to laugh out of ignorance. We'll see who gets the last laugh though. I would never give you the satisfaction of putting the book back online. I wouldn't even send you the book if you paid me for it. :whup:

That should be your policy for all people who want a copy. If you genuinely care about the memory of your dad, not only should not sell any more copies but you should try to buy back as many copies as you can. The book makes Lessans look like a Grade A Crackpot.

peacegirl · #**17394** 05-24-2012, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

IT DIDN'T HAVE TO GET ANYWHERE!!! You are in afferent mode.

If light is at a specific location it had to get there by some mechanism. That's not the afferent model, that's just the properties of light.

Just know that light travels. I never said it didn't. I can't make you understand this model of sight. It might take time for it to sink in or maybe it never will. I hope that you eventually get an aha moment.

Aha! You are completely out of your mind.

What exactly are you expecting to 'sink in'? There is no model, no mechanism, and no answer to any of the things you are being asked, so there is nothing that even could 'sink in' to improve our understanding. There is nothing to understand, because you don't even understand it yourself.

And you're completely out of your mind if you think for one second that I'm going to be disrespected this way. You are really crazier than I thought.

The Lone Ranger · #**17395** 05-24-2012, 10:39 PM

In humans, the only thing that is physically passed from a father to his offspring is 23 chromosomes. The chromosomes are made of molecules of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and proteins called histones. The DNA is organized into genes.

And I repeat, we have completely sequenced the human genome. So which of those 35,000 genes comprises the "germinal substance," given that's all your father passed on in his sperm?

Spacemonkey · #**17396** 05-24-2012, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

She likes any kind of attention except genuine concern about her mental health. My guess is there is history there and it's a sore spot.

I hadn't even thought of that, and it makes a lot of sense.

Indeed. That could be why I got no response from her family. It could be that they've already done all that can be done for her.

davidm · #**17397** 05-24-2012, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

IT DIDN'T HAVE TO GET ANYWHERE!!! You are in afferent mode.

If light is at a specific location it had to get there by some mechanism. That's not the afferent model, that's just the properties of light.

Just know that light travels. I never said it didn't. I can't make you understand this model of sight. It might take time for it to sink in or maybe it never will. I hope that you eventually get an aha moment.

Yes, you DID say it doesn't travel, AND you said it DOES travel. You said contradictory things, and I put the quotes side by side for you. Shall we do it again?

peacegirl · #**17398** 05-24-2012, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Have you noticed how many people you have now convinced here that Lessans was a crackpot and that you are mentally ill?

Do you realize that after over a year, this is the only thing you've achieved here?

I could care less Spacemonkey. You are the one that's losing out. Even if people are here to see me squirm, I got my message out as best I could under difficult circumstances. For those who are not sure about this discovery, at least they know it's out there if they ever want to read it or listen to the mp3.

Spacemonkey · #**17399** 05-24-2012, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Aha! You are completely out of your mind.

What exactly are you expecting to 'sink in'? There is no model, no mechanism, and no answer to any of the things you are being asked, so there is nothing that even could 'sink in' to improve our understanding. There is nothing to understand, because you don't even understand it yourself.

And you're completely out of your mind if you think for one second that I'm going to be disrespected this way. You are really crazier than I thought.

Like I said, when you refuse to answer any of my questions, then you leave me with nothing to discuss but your mental condition. And we know for a fact that you will put up with it. You'll put up with any kind of negative attention so long as you get to keep posting here.

davidm · #**17400** 05-24-2012, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

IT DIDN'T HAVE TO GET ANYWHERE!!! You are in afferent mode.

If light is at a specific location it had to get there by some mechanism. That's not the afferent model, that's just the properties of light.

Just know that light travels. I never said it didn't. I can't make you understand this model of sight. It might take time for it to sink in or maybe it never will. I hope that you eventually get an aha moment.

Aha! You are completely out of your mind.

What exactly are you expecting to 'sink in'? There is no model, no mechanism, and no answer to any of the things you are being asked, so there is nothing that even could 'sink in' to improve our understanding. There is nothing to understand, because you don't even understand it yourself.

I think she meant the "voila!" moment, as in her originally proposed physical mechanism for sight in her non-model: "Voila! We see!" :yup: