A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am saying that you can't assume that this difference in apparent and real positions is due to the time-light delay. It could be that we are correcting a mistake that was originally made in some other calculations.

Until you can provide some sort of actual disproof, this argument is pretty much useless. And no one else is going to do the work for you, because everyone else thinks it's wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The point I'm making is that no matter how perfect this whole thing looks to you, Lessans had a different take and I believe his perceptions are just as compelling. So who is right? You can't just throw his observations out in order to avoid a showdown. And you can't just pretend that Lessans was a crackpot and call it a day. Only more empirical testing will prove who is right, even though you think there is no need for this.

The "showdown" was played out hundreds of years before Lessans even had his take on the subject. He was proven wrong. If anyone conducts more empirical testing, Lessans will only continue to be proven wrong.

Honestly, Lessans had one compelling idea (paraphrasing), "words affect perception." Trouble is, he couldn't leave it at that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am saying that you can't assume that this difference in apparent and real positions is due to the time-light delay.

It could be that we are correcting a mistake that was originally made in some other calculations.

Yes NASA can and does assume that the difference is from the 'time-light delay', that is the only difference there is.

To try and claim that 'some other mistake' is canceling out the error is arrogant 'willful ignorance'. This is not some Jr. High School math class where the equation is dashed off quickly and turned in hoping it's right. Are you so stupid that you don't think that NASA has many people checking and rechecking the math to be sure it's right. It's like you think some Jr. grade tech is working out the equation on a scrap of paper to shoot off the rocket. Peacegirl, you continue to demonstrate your complete ignorance on subjects you know nothing about, yet are arrogant enough to critisize.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The word you are looking for thedoc is "inspired".

I believe that Lessans claimed to have been 'inspired', do you dare to think that you are on the same level as the great pool hustler and part time savior of the world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Until you can provide some sort of actual disproof, this argument is pretty much useless. And no one else is going to do the work for you, because everyone else thinks it's wrong.

The "showdown" was played out hundreds of years before Lessans even had his take on the subject. He was proven wrong. If anyone conducts more empirical testing, Lessans will only continue to be proven wrong.

Honestly, Lessans had one compelling idea (paraphrasing), "words affect perception." Trouble is, he couldn't leave it at that.

No, that's not what Lessans did. He did not put words before perception; in fact, he claimed that this is what other people did, and I know he was right. You want to desperately assign some problem to Lessans' observations, but in reality it is YOU that is not seeing that he had a legitimate claim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Until you can provide some sort of actual disproof, this argument is pretty much useless. And no one else is going to do the work for you, because everyone else thinks it's wrong.

The "showdown" was played out hundreds of years before Lessans even had his take on the subject. He was proven wrong. If anyone conducts more empirical testing, Lessans will only continue to be proven wrong.

Honestly, Lessans had one compelling idea (paraphrasing), "words affect perception." Trouble is, he couldn't leave it at that.

You keep saying that as your one and only defense, but that's not a defense, just as it's not a defense that all the forums I have been to say I'm wrong. It's doesn't cut it specious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

No David, this cannot happen because there is no past. There is only the present.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Another unsupported claim. You have no way of knowing how much thought someone has put into a post.

I didn't say people put no effort into responding, but their response is faulty, and the reason it is partly faulty is based on all of the previous posts. You cannot tell me that this thread is unbiased.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not reasonable if you are critiquing things that have no bearing on the major concepts. If you want to be critical, be critical of what's important, not the things you bring up (which have no bearing on the validity of the claims) just so you can cause suspicion in people's minds.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The big picture is made up of many little pieces. It is perfectly reasonable to critique those little pieces in the process of critiquing the big picture. If enough of the component parts are defective, then it is reasonable to conclude that the whole is defective as well.

Yes, if she was truly pointing out a flaw in the premises, but she's doing no such thing. LadyShea is bringing up trivialities which have nothing to do with the major concepts. She is so anal, she thinks that the things she is pointing out actually negate the entire book. I'm sure she's gloating with pride at what a wonderful sleuth she is, and how her imagined red flags actually mean anything.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lessans' mistakes, even the small ones, inasmuch as they reflect on his competence and credibility, are anything but trivial. Molecules of light, trillions of babies, etc. all provide reasons for questioning that competence and credibility.

That was exactly the motivation of LadyShea, and obviously she has convinced you, like NA has convinced Spacemonkey with his fake diagnosis. She is out to prove that these small trivialities invalidate his claims. It's nuttier than the fundamentalists who are trying in their own way to prove their case. She is no different than a fundie, but do you think she sees this? Of course not. No one can see their own biases unless it is clearly pointed out, and they have the humility to listen.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one can see their own biases unless it is clearly pointed out, and they have the humility to listen.

Where's your humility in listening?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

She is out to prove that these small trivialities invalidate his claims.

I never said these things invalidate his claims, I said it brought his competence and credibility into question.

Find one quote where I said his claims were invalid because of these mistakes and lies.

In fact, here's my exact quote the last time you said "This doesn't invalidate his discovery"

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, it doesn't, it just indicates sloppy scholarship, and lack of pertinent knowledge, and therefore brings his intellect and credibility into question.

I admitted it then and I say so again now. The mistakes and lies and nonsense and arrogance in the book does not invalidate any discoveries. The presence of mistakes, lies, nonsense, and arrogance does, however, bring his intellect and credibility into question

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's so easy for someone to make something appear what it's not --- if that's their goal --- and that's exactly what you're doing LadyShea. Face the music and stop being self-righteous!

peacegirl, if it were that easy you would have convinced at least one person.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, this cannot happen because there is no past. There is only the present.

1. I've no doubt that the literary allusion zipped right over your head, as I imagine you are as ignorant of literature as you are of every other field of endeavor.

2. Whether the past, present and future all exist is an ontological question that has no bearing on the claim of real-time seeing, but if they all exist, as is indicated by relativity theory, then "passage" of you via germinal substance or whatever to future persons is not possible, since future persons exist.

3. I sometimes think you are unable to grasp even in principle what delayed time seeing means. As I explained patiently to you several times in the past, and which you no doubt forgot, of course it's true that we SEE in the present. Everything we do, is done in the subjective present by definition. We see light NOW, but because the light took time to travel to our eyes, the image our mind constructs is an image of the object as it was sone time in the past. So, we see, in the present, images of the past. Is this really so hard for you to understand? If so, go look at a photograph. Report back on what it is showing.

BTW, did you ever do the really simple experiment Angakuk suggested with a flashlight and mirror that disproves all Lessans' claims? No, huh?

[LadyShea]

How does efferent vision explain parallax? Look at the position of the Sun in relation to the lightpost in the reflection versus the actual scene. How do you explain this, peacegirl?

[LadyShea]

These guys apparently accept questions.

GP-B — Testing Einstein

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say people put no effort into responding, but their response is faulty, and the reason it is partly faulty is based on all of the previous posts. You cannot tell me that this thread is unbiased.

That was exactly the motivation of LadyShea, and obviously she has convinced you, like NA has convinced Spacemonkey with his fake diagnosis. She is out to prove that these small trivialities invalidate his claims. It's nuttier than the fundamentalists who are trying in their own way to prove their case. She is no different than a fundie, but do you think she sees this? Of course not. No one can see their own biases unless it is clearly pointed out, and they have the humility to listen.

This is another example of your delusional thinking, and a mistake (or deliberate lie) you repeat over and over. Nobody here convinced anyone else to dismiss Lessans. We all independently evaluated the work and arrived at the same conclusion. His claims are WRONG. They conflict decisively with reality. It is REALITY that convinced us. Everyone here knows this, and arrived at their conclusions about Lessans' claims independently, because everyone here is educated, unlike you and Lessans. Now, care to take another whack at explaining Mars and NASA? No, huh?

[LadyShea]

Thorne—1976 Viking Geodetic Measurements

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

These guys apparently accept questions.

GP-B — Testing Einstein

Thats a nice find, thanks.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what Lessans did. He did not put words before perception; in fact, he claimed that this is what other people did, and I know he was right. You want to desperately assign some problem to Lessans' observations, but in reality it is YOU that is not seeing that he had a legitimate claim.

Actually, you're right, I was just re-reading it, and Lessans' manages to screw up the concept that word affect perception.

Consequently everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if the relation which is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an inaccurate negative which is then projected realistically upon undeniable substance. The word ‘beautiful’ has absolutely no external reality and yet because it is learned in association with a particular physiognomy a beautiful girl is created, when no such person exists.

Apparently, Lessans had a beef with aesthetics, too.

[LadyShea]

Oh yes, a big beef. He believed that people do not use words like beautiful and educated as subjective descriptors, but use them as though they represent objectively existing reality. And he believed this was caused by conditioning, and so those words need to be eliminated from language

[davidm]

I can see why he wanted the word "educated" eliminated from the language.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying that as your one and only defense, but that's not a defense, just as it's not a defense that all the forums I have been to say I'm wrong. It's doesn't cut it specious.

Yes, my only defense is to refer back to 100s of years of scientific discovery empirically proving Lessans' ideas about vision are incorrect.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I'm trying to tell you; the fact that light is surrounding the object, and the fact that the object is bright enough to be seen by the lens of a camera or eye, allows this interaction to occur. You are thinking in terms of photons traveling, and I'm coming from a completely different position. That's why there is no understanding whatsoever.

Photons do travel. That's a property of light. Your model must account for the locations of light given that light travels.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light didn't get there but the eyes did, so to speak.

What does this even mean? "So to speak" indicates you are using some kind of analogy. Can you explain it better?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't mean the eyes actually traveled, but if the brain is looking out, through the eyes, as a window, it's a completely opposite phenomenon than the one you're basing your logic on.

This doesn't at all tell us where the light is located.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where's your humility in listening?

I do have humility but I don't have to agree with you in order to prove it. That's why the only way to solve this is through unbiased empirical testing. If any of the results turn out to be in Lessans' favor, science needs to take a second look.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh yes, a big beef. He believed that people do not use words like beautiful and educated as subjective descriptors, but use them as though they represent objectively existing reality. And he believed this was caused by conditioning, and so those words need to be eliminated from language

Coming from a man who's grasp of English was tenuous at best that is pretty funny. If he can't understand it then stike it from the world. I can see where peacegirl gets her denseness.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do have humility but I don't have to agree with you in order to prove it. That's why the only way to solve this is through unbiased empirical testing. If any of the results turn out to be in Lessans' favor, science needs to take a second look.

You are not listening. It's been done. Lessans is shown to be very, very wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Yes, my only defense is to refer back to 100s of years of scientific discovery empirically proving Lessans' ideas about vision are incorrect.

And the only defense I have is that Lessans came along and saw this from a completely different angle. If he or someone else didn't, we might never know how the brain actually works in relation to the eyes. Lessans had compelling reasons to believe that we don't see the way science believes.