A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

When did he say this though? Didn't he die in the 1990's?

Yes, didn't you read the back over of the book? Someone put it on this thread.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have thought about this a lot. Maybe light does not have to impinge on the optic nerve for the eyes to see a distant object.

Eight eeks! The records keep falling, folks!

Maybe light does not have to impinge on the optic nerve for the eyes to see a distant object. But light does impinge on the optic nerve, and that is how we see a distant object. If you disagree, then pray, Peacegirl, how do we see a distant object? How do we see anything at all?

How?

Your father doesn't explain how! He merely says that "light is a condition for seeing."

And I ask you again: What, specficially, does that mean? What is the mechanism by which see, if not light impinging on the optic nerve?

What?

[Vivisectus]

Hang on - how does light that surround the object make the eyes of the subject dilate? Does that not mean it would have to travel from the object to the subject anyway? This would once again mean that there IS a delay - and we might as well say that it is light we are picking up, as light has to always accompany this mystery medium that makes sight work. Occam's Razor would then suggest scrap the sight-ether and stick with just light.

And no matter what anyone might think of DavidM's extra-caustic delivery with caustic-sauce on the side and a side-order of caustic, (devastating put-downs are considered a form of art on this board, don't take it personally) you have to admit it takes a bit more than an open mind to think that photons hang around, inactive, to be activated by the sun's... what? Some sort of mystery radiation? It flies in the face of everything we know about photons - stuff we have tested, re-tested, and that works!

[Vivisectus]

But then we must be a good 15 years into this prediction already? When was this first brought out?

[peacegirl]

I would like to ask davidm a question because this will determine if it's worth talking to him at all. David, is there a possibility at all that Lessans could be right, or are you so convinced that he is wrong that you would bet your life on it? I really need to know this because if you believe he is so wrong that you would bet your life on it, how can I talk to you? You believe you are right even though you say that science changes according to new information. I don't want you to bet your life, but this is what it has come down to unfortunately.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hang on - how does light that surround the object make the eyes of the subject dilate? Does that not mean it would have to travel from the object to the subject anyway? This would once again mean that there IS a delay - and we might as well say that it is light we are picking up, as light has to always accompany this mystery medium that makes sight work. Occam's Razor would then suggest scrap the sight-ether and stick with just light.

And no matter what anyone might think of DavidM's extra-caustic delivery with caustic-sauce on the side and a side-order of caustic, (devastating put-downs are considered a form of art on this board, don't take it personally) you have to admit it takes a bit more than an open mind to think that photons hang around, inactive, to be activated by the sun's... what? Some sort of mystery radiation? It flies in the face of everything we know about photons - stuff we have tested, re-tested, and that works!

Vivisecus, I don't know how this mechanism might work, but I hope you don't negate it just because we don't know the mechanism. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking people to change what is proven to be true. But this knowledge is up for grabs, whether you hate this fact or not. No one is exempt, not even this forum who are full of scientific thinkers.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hang on - how does light that surround the object make the eyes of the subject dilate? Does that not mean it would have to travel from the object to the subject anyway?

That's just the point Vivisectus, it wouldn't take any time at all because how we see has nothing to do with light entering the optic nerve and going to the brain to be interpreted. That is what he is disputing. No delay at all.

[Vivisectus]

But then we have FTL particles?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how this mechanism might work, but I hope you don't negate it just because we don't know the mechanism. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking people to change what is proven to be true. But this knowledge is up for grabs, whether you hate this fact or not. No one is exempt, not even this forum who are full of scientific thinkers.

That science, or more specifically humans, are fallible does not mean that every alternate theory must be given equal weight and consideration compared to modern models (which you seem to think were invented by a bunch of elitist Ivy-leagues sitting in a room and speculating about things - I can only assume this is projection, since bald speculation is actually how the work you defend came to be).

Much as we no longer need to seriously consider an explanation for oxidizing chemical processes (e.g. combustion) that involves phlogiston, or an explanation of cooling and freezing that involves anything other than the loss of thermal energy, we do not need to seriously consider an explanation of sight that claims light does not impinge on the optic nerve, or that we would see a distant event as it happens rather than with a speed-of-light delay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Eight eeks! The records keep falling, folks!

Maybe light does not have to impinge on the optic nerve for the eyes to see a distant object. But light does impinge on the optic nerve, and that is how we see a distant object. If you disagree, then pray, Peacegirl, how do we see a distant object? How do we see anything at all?

How?

Your father doesn't explain how! He merely says that "light is a condition for seeing."

And I ask you again: What, specficially, does that mean? What is the mechanism by which see, if not light impinging on the optic nerve?

What?

The brain's ability to FOCUS AND SEE with light as a necessary condition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how this mechanism might work, but I hope you don't negate it just because we don't know the mechanism. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking people to change what is proven to be true. But this knowledge is up for grabs, whether you hate this fact or not. No one is exempt, not even this forum who are full of scientific thinkers.

Originally Posted by kael

That science, or more specifically humans, are fallible does not mean that every alternate theory must be given equal weight and consideration compared to modern models (which you seem to think were invented by a bunch of elitist Ivy-leagues sitting in a room and speculating about things - I can only assume this is projection, since bald speculation is actually how the work you defend came to be).

What???? Bald speculation? I don't even know how to answer you kael. I swear to god I'm at a loss.

Originally Posted by kael

Much as we no longer need to seriously consider an explanation for oxidizing chemical processes (e.g. combustion) that involves phlogiston, or an explanation of cooling and freezing that involves anything other than the loss of thermal energy, we do not need to seriously consider an explanation of sight that claims light does not impinge on the optic nerve, or that we would see a distant event as it happens rather than with a speed-of-light delay.

I know that's the category you put this concept in. But sometimes we put concepts in wrong categories. We use to believe that the earth was flat, for very good reasons. Well...you need to consider the possibility that this is the same situation, or else you will be one of those dogmatic people who say, "No way". He can't be right; he can't even be close to right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But then we have FTL particles?

I'm not sure what you mean by FTL particles.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisecus, I don't know how this mechanism might work, but I hope you don't negate it just because we don't know the mechanism. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking people to change what is proven to be true. But this knowledge is up for grabs, whether you hate this fact or not. No one is exempt, not even this forum who are full of scientific thinkers.

One of the reasons why I suggested you read Origin of Species is exactly because Darwin did not know the mechanism behind evolution, but that did not deter him from taking his observations and producing a coherent argument.

That said, the section of Lessan's book on vision and light does not accurately reflect observations in the natural world. You should read The Lone Ranger's post On the Anatomy and Physiology of Sight. It's not that science is totally fixed on the mechanisms of sight, but it's unlikely a radical new conception of how sight works is likely unseat the current theory without a lot of proof. The book does not have adequate proof, and that proof cannot be found.

At one point, you claimed that light does not contain information. This is patently false. If light could not contain information, you couldn't post to this forum, as most modern data networks are built with fiber optic cabling. You know... light. There is so much modern technology that would fail to work correctly if our current understanding of how light works is wrong. Lessan's observations would have to take hundreds of years of science into account in order to get even marginal acceptance.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to add here that I could keep my mouth shut and just let the world develop as it is. But my father's input is also part of our development. That's like saying, "Can't religion keep its mouth shut and good things would happen anyway? We're all part of making the world a better place, so why should I be singled out to keep my mouth shut?

The reason I asked the question was to understand why you are trying to convince anyone of these ideas. If you thought that it will take time for the universe to be ready, then any amount of convincing would not matter.

Apparently, you think that the convincing helps the universe to be ready to accept these ideas. Fine. If you think that, then why don't you try some different tactics to improve communication with other people or try communicating with people who are more likely to be persuaded? Why don't you take the advice to edit the book to be clearer? Your current methods are not effective, so why not improve them?

Maybe this will help:

Remember, in conclusion, my prediction that all war will come to a permanent end in the next 25 years is not like the prediction that an eclipse will occur at a given time because the astronomer has nothing whatever to do with the motion of these bodies and the crossing of their paths. All he is doing is charting their course. Mine, however, is equivalent to the one a philanthropist makes that a certain university will receive a donation of one million dollars on a given date because he is the one who intends to donate this money on that date. I am donating to mankind this scientific discovery that gives man no choice as to the direction he is compelled to travel, once the principles are understood. Until that time, your help, your willingness to learn about these principles and understand them is needed. And once you understand them, you will be compelled, of your own free will, to spread the news.

This does not help and is another example of poor writing. I don't think that these are very good examples. Wouldn't a time line for something that compels people along certain principles be a lot more like someone charting the course of planets, etc. according to scientific laws/understandings than a benefactor who is going to do something at a certain time? Would you even call someone saying "I will meet you at 2pm" a prediction? It doesn't really have the same connotation. Lessans cannot create the Golden Age that he wants, unlike a philanthropist who is going to donate money to a school. And even if he was a benefactor, it does not follow that anyone's help is needed. The philanthropist does not need other people's help in order for his gift to be received or useful. Very few of his examples or discussions support or clarify his initial assertions or ideas, like we see in this paragraph. Instead, they obfuscate any point he is making and distract the reader.

I am not a professional writer, although writing was an important part of my professional work. I do not claim to be very good at it. However, I tried my hand at creating a clearer picture of what Lessans is trying to convey in the part that you quoted. What is in the brackets is information that I think is relevant, but currently unknowable according to you, since you can't distill these principles down to anything less than a bazillion pages. It resolves some of the concerns about stupid, irrelevant, and distracting non-details and the author's messiah complex.

Originally Posted by wildy's rewrite

In conclusion, I predict that war will come to a permanent end in the next 25 years. Once these principles are understood, mankind will be compelled [to do whatever it is that prevents all wars]. As you learn these principles, you will feel compelled to teach others. In this way, the news of [whatever the actual principle is] will spread across the planet and bring peace to fruition.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what you mean by FTL particles.

FTL is shorthand for 'faster than light'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hang on - how does light that surround the object make the eyes of the subject dilate? Does that not mean it would have to travel from the object to the subject anyway? This would once again mean that there IS a delay - and we might as well say that it is light we are picking up, as light has to always accompany this mystery medium that makes sight work. Occam's Razor would then suggest scrap the sight-ether and stick with just light.

And no matter what anyone might think of DavidM's extra-caustic delivery with caustic-sauce on the side and a side-order of caustic, (devastating put-downs are considered a form of art on this board, don't take it personally) you have to admit it takes a bit more than an open mind to think that photons hang around, inactive, to be activated by the sun's... what? Some sort of mystery radiation? It flies in the face of everything we know about photons - stuff we have tested, re-tested, and that works!

Lessans came to his conclusions about seeing the sun exploding instantly as a result of his observations that the eyes are not a sense organ. He could have been wrong about the sun exploding example, I said this already, but I'm not going to change the claim that the eyes are efferent. It takes an open mind to not strike back in retaliation like davidm is doing. Occam's razor does not apply here, because the present model of sight is not the simpler explanation by any means.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

FTL is shorthand for 'faster than light'.

Thank you ceptimus.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

You're right that if the universe is not ready, no amount of convincing would matter, but the universe is ready. We need this knowledge more than ever. It might take another century for this discovery to be recognized, but it has to start somewhere, and there's no time like the present.

If everyone wants to pitch in at least $500 so I can get the book re-edited, I'll do it.

Maybe it wasn't the best analogy, but it was his, and I won't touch his words. I could clarify his words, but not change them. The fact that his analogy could have been better still doesn't change the meaning which is that he was giving something to mankind that requires people to pass it on. How long it will take for this new world to become a reality depends on when this book is confirmed valid by leading scientists.

There you go again telling me what he was like when I knew him. He had no messiah complex wildernesse. Why did you throw that in? Up until the last sentence I was listening to what you had to say. Then you blew it.

But that's not what he meant. So now you are not only changing the wording, but the meaning. People will not teach others and in this way peace will come to fruition. Peace will come to fruition when the Great Transition occurs on a global scale.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain's ability to FOCUS AND SEE with light as a necessary condition.

Then why do cortically blind people have pupils that contract to light? Why do people who lack consciousness have pupils that continue to contract to light?

Once again peacegirl demonstrates the ravages of willful ignorance.

--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Occam's razor does not apply here, because the present model of sight is not the simpler explanation by any means.

You know, I'm really beginning to wonder if this isn't some sort of elaborate prank. I am truly doubtful that anyone could think that photons are waiting to "smile" on us when we get up in the morning, or that if God turned on the sun, we would see it immediately, but would need to wait eight minutes to see the person standing next to us. I just have a hard time accepting that anyone on earth could believe such stupid shit.

And then I look at the name: "Seymour Lessans." And he presumes to give us a lot of lessons. And the name sounds like, "See More Lessons."



It reminds me of my trolling at the asswit board Talk "Rational." Where I posed as a dotty old retired professor of home economics who was defending "intelligent design." The name I used was Florence (Flo) Jellem.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

One of the reasons why I suggested you read Origin of Species is exactly because Darwin did not know the mechanism behind evolution, but that did not deter him from taking his observations and producing a coherent argument.

That said, the section of Lessan's book on vision and light does not accurately reflect observations in the natural world. You should read The Lone Ranger's post On the Anatomy and Physiology of Sight. It's not that science is totally fixed on the mechanisms of sight, but it's unlikely a radical new conception of how sight works is likely unseat the current theory without a lot of proof. The book does not have adequate proof, and that proof cannot be found.

At one point, you claimed that light does not contain information. This is patently false. If light could not contain information, you couldn't post to this forum, as most modern data networks are built with fiber optic cabling. You know... light. There is so much modern technology that would fail to work correctly if our current understanding of how light works is wrong. Lessan's observations would have to take hundreds of years of science into account in order to get even marginal acceptance.

I've been wanting to read that link for quite awhile because it will give me better insight into the present model of sight. I am not saying that the way light works is wrong. I'm saying that the way scientists believe we see is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You know, I'm really beginning to wonder if this isn't some sort of elaborate prank. I am truly doubtful that anyone could think that photons are waiting to "smile" on us when we get up in the morning, or that if God turned on the sun, we would see it immediately, but would need to wait eight minutes to see the person standing next to us. I just have a hard time accepting that anyone on earth could believe such stupid shit.

And then I look at the name: "Seymour Lessans." And he presumes to give us a lot of lessons. And the name sounds like, "See More Lessons."



It reminds me of my trolling at the asswit board Talk "Rational." Where I posed as a dotty old retired professor of home economics who was defending "intelligent design." The name I used was Florence (Flo) Jellem.

You are constantly resorting to belittling, as if this somehow gives you more credibility. Well it doesn't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Then why do cortically blind people have pupils that contract to light? Why do people who lack consciousness have pupils that continue to contract to light?

Once again peacegirl demonstrates the ravages of willful ignorance.

--J.D.

I'm not saying anything about blind people. Obviously, if you're blind you can't see whether your pupils contract and dilate, or not. Light is a necessary condition for sight, if you are a seeing eyed person.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are constantly resorting to belittling, as if this somehow gives you more credibility. Well it doesn't.

No, I don't resort to belittling to gain more credibility. I have 100 percent credibility and you and Dad have zero credibility. I resort to belittling because that is what you deserve, for trying to swindle people out of $39.95 to buy this piece of unmitigated crap.

Here, peacegirl, the clue phone is ringing! Get an education:

Photons


From the linked article:

Photons can also be absorbed by nuclei, atoms or molecules, provoking transitions between their energy levels. A classic example is the molecular transition of retinal C20H28O, which is responsible for vision, as discovered in 1958 by Nobel laureate biochemist George Wald and co-workers. The absorption provokes a cis-trans isomerization that, in combination with other such transitions, is transduced into nerve impulses. The absorption of photons can even break chemical bonds, as in the photodissociation of chlorine; this is the subject of photochemistry.[89][90] Analogously, gamma rays can in some circumstances dissociate atomic nuclei in a process called photodisintegration.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying that the way scientists believe we see is wrong.

--J.D.