A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

For Janis, from Janis.

Janis Joplin - Mercedes Benz - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What doesn't make any sense? What have I repeatedly told you the payoff is for me? What was my answer for why I am here the last thousand or so times you've asked me? You don't remember, do you?

You are not being ingenuous, that's all I need to know.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me the posts and I will do just that.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I already did, as you have since acknowledged. Try reading my posts next time.

It doesn't matter. This whole discussion has nothing to do with the book or its value, so I don't know what you're trying to prove.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You got me. I forgot that he made similar remarks from an earlier thread that he followed me to. Realizing that this was his original stance, I probably shouldn't have given him as much time as I have already. Now it all makes sense.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, Peacegirl. It was not my original stance. It was the conclusion I reached after observing your behavior and interacting with you for nearly a year at IIDB. Other posters here at FF have since independently reached the same conclusion that you are mentally ill. Everywhere you go, this is the only thing you are ever able to convince people of.

But your conclusion is wrong, don't you understand?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your attempts to pass this off as a matter of brainwashing or groupthink do not hold water. Other posters here did not convince me that you are mentally ill, because that was already my position. And I didn't convince others here of this, because they reached this conclusion before I started expressing it here. The only remaining explanation is that it is only YOU and YOUR behavior that independently convinces different people of your mental illness and dysfunction.

Of course, because I have come online and made huge claims. People are not taking it seriously. They are being confrontational which is a mindset that will prevent them from understanding the principles. That's why I said they have to give him the benefit of the doubt, which they're not doing. I get why people are thinking it's me with the problem, but regardless, it doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of this knowledge even if your logic tells you otherwise. It just means that people are going to have to go through growing pains to finally realize that this discovery is no joke.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Pertinent questions you have never answered.

I am answering to the best of my ability Spacemonkey, but you are failing to understand how completely opposite efferent vision is from the present model, and why you cannot talk about light apart from the object, which is what you are doing the minute you talk about blue photons coming before red photons.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you cannot talk about light apart from the object

Yes, you can. You can not only talk about it, you can write down Maxwell's equations and describe light completely separately and independently from any source. Even worse for your daft position - we can (and do) make light by destroying a pair of particles. Now there is light, but no object!

If you knew anything at all about how we've learned the world works, you'd be forced to conclude Lessans was a crackpot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It sure is fucked up. Why do you keep doing things like that? Saying you're leaving, then coming right back? Saying you're answering my questions, then refusing point blank to answer them? Saying you're going to ignore all of my posts from now, then replying to me in the very next post? Saying you won't discuss a certain topic anymore, then contining to discuss it? Saying you'd be insane to keep posting here, then continuing to post here anyway?

Does your behavior make any sense, even to you?

Because at the moment I say this, I'm just very frustrated. Haven't you ever done that; said something that a moment later you took back? I want to answer your questions, that's why I'm here, but when you keep telling me I'm mentally ill, I get upset and don't want to talk to you. There are so few people interacting in here that if I say goodbye to you, LadyShea, and a few others, this discussion will be over. The unfortunate part for me is that I am not going to another forum and starting a new thread, so I'm stuck for the time being with you guys.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG peacegirl, you've been here over a year and you still need to "feel welcomed" and are unable to gauge interest?

We've told you what our interests are regarding Lessans ideas and what questions we have regarding those topics and you are well aware of a number of criticisms of every chapter.

But the criticisms are unfounded, don't you get that? These criticisms are way premature and I can't get to first base because of how quickly you are in your rush to judgment.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can engage on our terms, or you can disengage, or you can just copy and paste, or you can get the fuck out or keep weaseling and whining or whatever.

If I engage on your terms, it's a done deal. This thread is over. Your confrontational attitude (if that's what you mean by engagement) will never allow me to get through the most important chapters. Why can't you just listen before saying anything. You have all the time in the world to reject this book, after, not before, it's thoroughly gone over.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody here at is going to compel or constrain you, do what you want, however know that others don't have to respond how you want them to

I don't expect people to respond in a way that I want. I just want them to grasp the principles before criticizing. I understand why this whole thing was a joke in the beginning, but you should know by now that this isn't a joke, and you should have the patience to let me explain things my way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

For Janis, from Janis.

Janis Joplin - Mercedes Benz - YouTube

She was a rebel in her time. I always told people that my name is spelled like hers because they always spell it Janice.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am answering to the best of my ability Spacemonkey.

Don't lie to me. And don't lie to yourself. Completely point blank refusing to answer any of my questions at all is obviously not answering to the best of your ability.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But your conclusion is wrong, don't you understand?

No, I don't. You haven't given me any reason at all to think my conclusion about your mental health is wrong. On the contrary, you confirm it with every post.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because at the moment I say this, I'm just very frustrated. Haven't you ever done that; said something that a moment later you took back? I want to answer your questions, that's why I'm here, but when you keep telling me I'm mentally ill, I get upset and don't want to talk to you. There are so few people interacting in here that if I say goodbye to you, LadyShea, and a few others, this discussion will be over. The unfortunate part for me is that I am not going to another forum and starting a new thread, so I'm stuck for the time being with you guys.

I've never done any of the things I listed which you have done repeatedly. If I did then I would be concerned for my mental well-being. Why are you so addicted to discussing your fathers' material that you'd rather discuss it with people who are convinced you are insane than discuss it with no-one at all?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am answering to the best of my ability Spacemonkey...

Go on then. Answer these to the best of your ability:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does light have to be at the eye, or does it only have to be surrounding the object? Which is it?

And how did the light at the eye get there, if it never traveled there? ('Because of how efferent vision works' is not an answer. Neither is listing conditions that must be satisfied.)

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Care to remind us again of how the red photons get to be at the camera film at the very moment the distant object first turns red? Where did you say those same photons where just a moment beforehand?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am answering to the best of my ability Spacemonkey...

Answer these questions to the best of your ability:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, in real-time photography, in a scenario involving only an object, a camera, and light (and no eyes, brains, or vision)...

1) You agree that some of the light which hits the object is not absorbed, still exists 0.0001sec after hitting the object, and must have a location at that time. So what is the location of these nonabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? Are they about 30 meters from the object and traveling away from it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then where are they located at this time?

2) You agree that there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it to determine the color of the resulting image) when the photograph is taken, that this light also existed 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken, and that it must have had a location at this time. So what is the location of these photons 0.0001sec before they are at the camera film (i.e. 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken)? Were they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then were were they located at this time?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am answering to the best of my ability Spacemonkey...

Are the following the words of someone trying to answer to the best of their ability, Peacegirl?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not.

Did you forget having said the above?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the criticisms are unfounded, don't you get that?

That's your opinion. I have found the criticisms not only valid, but expected of a work such as this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These criticisms are way premature and I can't get to first base because of how quickly you are in your rush to judgment.

Again, your perception of prematurity and rushing is based on your deep belief in the truth of the work and your growing up with these ideas your whole life....you have a strong bias because you knew and loved Lessans.

The mistakes and leaps of logic and poor scholarship and terrible writing are immediately apparent to a reader without your background and bias.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I engage on your terms, it's a done deal. This thread is over. Your confrontational attitude (if that's what you mean by engagement) will never allow me to get through the most important chapters.

My terms have always been nothing more than requiring you to mount a strong defense of the work and to answer questions and criticisms adequately and effectively as it is of anybody presenting a work of scholarship.

Expecting conditional acceptance and agreement in order to move on is simply not the way non-crackpots present new ideas.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you just listen before saying anything. You have all the time in the world to reject this book, after, not before, it's thoroughly gone over.

That's not the way it works with skeptics and people who think, as you've found over and over again at various philosophy forums.

If you want it to be like a lecture series and hold questions/discussion to the end then do it as a lecture series not as an open discussion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't expect people to respond in a way that I want. I just want them to grasp the principles before criticizing. I understand why this whole thing was a joke in the beginning, but you should know by now that this isn't a joke, and you should have the patience to let me explain things my way.

The principles are presented in a sloppy manner and the mistakes and leaps of logic are too glaringly obvious right off the bat for that to happen in an open discussion venue. You couldn't even adequately support the very first foundational premise.

As for explaining things "your way" that's what websites and blogs and YouTube and lectures are for, that's not how open discussions amongst adults work.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yes, you can. You can not only talk about it, you can write down Maxwell's equations and describe light completely separately and independently from any source. Even worse for your daft position - we can (and do) make light by destroying a pair of particles. Now there is light, but no object!

If you knew anything at all about how we've learned the world works, you'd be forced to conclude Lessans was a crackpot.

Peacegirl, as everyone here has been trying to tell you, if your model doesn't or can't work without changing the known properties of light (these are facts, not theories or hypotheses) then your model is wrong.

Light is independent of its source. This is fact. Light always travels. This is fact. Because it is independent and travels it can be said to always have a location. Fact. When light physically encounters matter it can be transmitted, absorbed, or reflected (selectively by wavelength), those are the ONLY ways it interacts with matter. Absorbed light is transformed to some other type of energy, reflected or transmitted light continues to travel and have locations.

Either your model accounts for light or it doesn't. If it doesn't then it is not a working model and simply wrong. Period.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yes, you can. You can not only talk about it, you can write down Maxwell's equations and describe light completely separately and independently from any source. Even worse for your daft position - we can (and do) make light by destroying a pair of particles. Now there is light, but no object!

If you knew anything at all about how we've learned the world works, you'd be forced to conclude Lessans was a crackpot.

That's not even what I'm referring to Dragar. I'm talking about sight in reference to an object (or any kind of mass), that light interacts with, not the actual properties of light. You just don't get it. Sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are the following the words of someone trying to answer to the best of their ability, Peacegirl?

Did you forget having said the above?

I repeat myself all the time. What's it to you? What does it mean in the scheme of things in regard to the accuracy of this knowledge? How are you trying to use this as a reason to dismiss these claims? You are so off the mark I can't even talk to you. It's really sad.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not even what I'm referring to Dragar. I'm talking about sight in reference to an object (or any kind of mass), that light interacts with, not the actual properties of light. You just don't get it. Sorry.

You require a change in the properties of light for your model of sight to work. You are the one not getting it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Answer these questions to the best of your ability:

Oh my gawd, you have no clue Spacemonkey. I don't care what you think until you project your ignorance onto me. I'm sorry, but I will not continue the conversatin when you talk about 0.0001 seconds in relation to real time vision because the two don't match. If the eyes are efferent, it will show up on the retina as the exact image of what is seen, and I'm very sorry if you don't get this. It doesn't make Lessans wrong Spacemonkey. Are you that stuck on yourself that you can't even consider a different point of view if it disagrees with Sir Highness? Who are you, God Himself? To attack my mental status as a way to make yourself right, is an absolute disgrace and a total cop-out.

[naturalist.atheist]

Reset

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I repeat myself all the time. What's it to you? What does it mean in the scheme of things in regard to the accuracy of this knowledge? How are you trying to use this as a reason to dismiss these claims? You are so off the mark I can't even talk to you. It's really sad.

It's only sad for you peacegirl.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Don't lie to me. And don't lie to yourself. Completely point blank refusing to answer any of my questions at all is obviously not answering to the best of your ability.

That's where you're wrong Spacemonkey. She is answering to the best of her ability. Your expectations of a crazy person are too high.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just want them to grasp the principles before criticizing. , and you should have the patience to let me explain things my way.

When someone criticizes or comments, they are trying to understand what you are saying, but when you are evasive, give confusing answers, or get hostile it does not help people to understand. You are the one who needs patience and just explain your way if you like at first, but if the questions continue you can't get defensive and repetative, that just puts people off. You need to answer the questions that are asked, not what you would like them to ask.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I don't. You haven't given me any reason at all to think my conclusion about your mental health is wrong. On the contrary, you confirm it with every post.

Seriously Spacemonkey, if you don't let go of the mental health shit, I promise you, you are on borrowed time.