A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So I am to take it, then, that you've read the studies in question, and that you can explain the flaws in the authors' methodology and reasoning?

Because I'd really like to see some justification for your refusal to accept evidence that flatly contradicts your beliefs -- justification other than that you simply don't want to accept it, that is.

That's fair enough. I will read the studies in question today, if I get a chance. I am not evading anything; I just need to carefully read the studies without any distractions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Just read what comes next, if you haven't already. I don't think I've ever read more sustained and incoherent drivel anywhere! Honestly.

Just consider this one quote from the mess above:

This brings an unprecedented (so far as I know) five eeks:

Why do you keep bringing this one afterthought up? I told you numerous times that if he was wrong on this one observation, he would have admitted it. But he was basing this observation as an extension of his observation that light is a condition of sight, not a cause of sight. In other words, the image is not in the light that is then converted in the brain.

[Doctor X]

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?

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Unfortunately, we'll probably all be dead before this knowledge is confirmed valid. Do you think he cared about being a household name? Do you think this is all about money? Sure, if I sold books and made up for all the money I put into this, I wouldn't reject it. The last figure I got, if I sell on Amazon, I will make a big $.46 for each book sold. Whoopie doooo. I couldn't even buy a cup of coffee. The truth is I would love to be able to buy all organic; and maybe get some massages for my aching back. I'm really not high maintenance.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus"

Hang on you said it would happen in the next 25 years! Is that no longer the case now? Why the change? Is the world less ready for it than you thought?

Here is the back cover which I wrote. I know it sounds religious because I used the word God, but if people opened the cover at all, they would see what he meant by the word God.

A scientific discovery was made in 1959 by a self-learned man who, after many years of intense study, observed a universal principle never perceived before. Stumbling upon such an important finding, it was difficult for him to comprehend the magnitude of what he had uncovered. It took him many more years to transcribe his revelation into book format so it could be understood by others. When it came time to get his work published he was turned down because he was not a member of a leading university, and held no distinguishing titles.

Sadly, he died in obscurity in 1991, at the age of 72. Until today, his work has never been given a careful review, nor has it been widely distributed. This discovery has far-reaching implications for today's world because it prevents the conditions that lead to hurt and retaliation in human relations. For the very first time we are able to get a glimpse of a new world where there will be no war, crime, or hatred between man and man. The author made a prediction that the Golden age would become a reality in the 20th century. Unfortunately, this did not come to pass because he was unable to reach the leading scientists of his time who could have validated his findings. Now more than ever before it is imperative that this natural law be investigated and brought to light, for the world is on the brink of a major disaster. We cannot afford to sit idly by and let others take the lead in this important investigation; otherwise, this discovery could be lost for another century. God has given mankind the basic blueprint. It is now up to us to apply it...before it's too late.

This is what Lessans wrote after the copyright page:

This is the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written because it
will verify the prediction made in the introduction by producing
unbelievable changes in human relations in the next 25 years. By
discovering the invariable laws of the solar system we were able to
predict an eclipse and land men on the moon. By discovering the
invariable laws that inhere in the mankind system we are able, for
the very first time, to predict and accomplish what was never
before possible — our deliverance from evil.

Then I added:

Please note that when the author mentions the 20th century he is
referring to the time period when this discovery was first made.
This book was meant to be read through the eyes of the author. His
prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil
was based on the assumption that this discovery would be found
scientifically sound after a thorough investigation. Unfortunately,
this did not come to pass because he was unable to reach the
leading scientists of his time who could have validated his
findings. Though it has been over 50 years since these findings
were uncovered, there has been no such investigation and, as of
yet, this revolutionary knowledge has not been brought to light.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oh and the 46 cents is Amazon making money off you for a small self-published run. If the revolution happens and viral marketing takes hold, you will get a hell of a lot more from the established publishing houses. They can actually market it properly too - speeding up the rate at which it spreads. If it really works you may be looking at all home-grown by a personal kitchen-gardener and a swedish massage specialist called Sven!

From your mouth to God's ears. I know you are making a big joke of all this, but actually talking on here is very discouraging to me. If no one here is interested because they think this man is a crackpot, how will other people understand this knowledge? Sure, if a big publishing house wanted to get involved, yes, I might take them up on it, but I don't see that happening anytime soon unless I could get someone famous involved. The truth is making money would be great, but that is not the first priority for me. Why do you think I put the book online for free? This is a major discovery and I don't want money to get in the way, yet I don't want to be taken advantage of by letting Amazon take all of my profit when I am the one that put in all of the sweat and tears into this for 9 long years. Amazon is making 50% of the sale. Trafford makes the rest. I get very little if I sell on Amazon. If I sell directly from Trafford I will make a little bit more because there is no middle man. For that reason, I think I'm getting off of Amazon's database because they are not fair to the smaller authors. The big celebrities get big advances which makes it worthwhile for them.

I would never say "I told you so", (I'm not blaming you for being in disbelief). If you could only see into the future, you would have more empathy for where we are at this moment.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I would not begrudge you a small dignified smirk in the slightest.

That's better than an undignified smirk, so I take that as progress.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

Yes, he died in January of 1991 while watching the Super Bowl. He loved watching this.

[peacegirl]

[quote=davidm;935810]From the book:

If it was possible to transmit a television picture from
the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the
people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into
America for the first time because the picture would be in the process
of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But
objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge
on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it
takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun,
or distant stars.

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, Peacegirl, how do you think television images are sent from point A to to point B?

Oh, and Peacegirl, about that little relativity problem: Why does the man on the ground see the flashes of light simultaenously, while the guy on the train sees them sequentially?

The truth is that I don't think this contradicts anything Lessans claimed. So let's start from the begining, step by step, to know what is really true. Isn't that what you want to know?

[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!

Vivisectus, why is this so hard to believe? I am not discounting the knowledge that has accumulated regarding the information that light offers us. I am just saying it is a condition in order to see, but it is not a cause. Why don't you get this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But then we have FTL particles?

That is assuming that the information is coming into the brain. Don't you see this interpretation could be based on a falsity? I am ready to give up, and it's so sad to me because I do like everyone here and I believe they are sincere and trying to decipher fraud from truth. But I am just at a loss how to continue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

[quote-"specious_reasons"]If Lessan's observations of how vision works is correct, light cannot be the way we see objects. If light is not the way we see, why should light be a necessary condition for sight? Occam's razor says that this hypothesis is inferior because it requires both light and something else which permits us to see.

That's not true. Light is the way we see objects but not in the way it has been explained.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

This is not proof that the theory is wrong - but it's a good indicator that other hypotheses should be tested first. Not surprisingly, current scientific theory started with a better hypothesis and has found it works very well with observable reality.

A good indicator is not proof specious_reasons, and according to your name, you may be listening more than others, I don't know for sure. I'm just hoping someone will come forward even if it is against the thinking in here. It's amazing to me how prejudice people can be without any proof except that others agree. This is not what I call science and I don't think you call this science either.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. Light is the way we see objects but not in the way it has been explained.

You don't seem to understand the point that I am attempting to make - that everyone is attempting to make when we read the section on sight as a sense.
This part, for instance:

If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards.

is entirely inconsistent with the concept of light as the source of vision. The instant the sun is "turned on", we would not see the sun until 8 minutes later because that is the time it takes for light to reach the Earth.

We know this through various experiments and observations.

For Lessan's example above to be true, something other than light must be the source for vision, hence Occam's Razor says this is a less desirable hypothesis.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A good indicator is not proof specious_reasons,

That would be why I said, "This is not proof that the theory is wrong." Why don't you think I understand that?

Maybe let's assume Lessan was trying to make a point and chose a clumsy way to express it. Suppose you accept that light is both necessary and sufficient for vision, and that Lessan's assumption about the 8 minutes is not correct, but still think that "Light is the way we see objects but not in the way it has been explained." We can throw away everything I wrote about Occam's Razor.

The problem now is that the current theory of sight is very well established with experimental results. The burden of proof is so very high that Lessan's text is sorely inadequate to unseating current theory. If scientists have any dogma, it's to use what works best, and Lessan does not even provide a good indicator that his ideas work better.

I would be much, much more tolerant of Lessan's ideas on sight if he argued that vision was psychologically or logically a different sense than the others. Instead he chose to write things that are egregiously incorrect.

I think one of the reasons I'm so focused on this section is that it exposes a tragic flaw in Lessan's writing - even if his discovery is a revolution in thought, the discovery is horribly tarnished by the fact that he chooses to hold discourse on subjects which he is plainly incorrect.

[Doctor X]

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?

--J.D.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's amazing to me how prejudice people can be without any proof except that others agree. This is not what I call science and I don't think you call this science either.

Please stop saying such things. It's false, it's insulting and frankly, it's stupid.

Some of us here are actual scientists and know vastly more about what science is and how it's done than you're ever likely to.

[davidm]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to share with the members a book that is a true revolution in thought because this knowledge leads to an alteration of environmental conditions, making war and crime an impossibility, and therefore redefines what was possible at an earlier time. I hope this brings interest because it is absolutely and positively a breakthrough that has yet to be uncovered.

These are only excerpts. I’m not going to give the whole thing away, for fuck’s sake, because I hope to sell it on the Internet. It was written by my father, Seymour Lackwit.

Title: What’s the Frequency, Kenneth?
The Answer to the Question That Was Famously Asked of Dan Rather


Chapter ONE (EXCERPT! NOT FOR REPRODUCTION WITHOUT PERMISSION!):

MAN HAS NO WEE FRILLS

…and I called Will Durant on the telephone.

“Will,” I said, “Man has no wee frills!”

“For fuck’s sake, you keep calling me, and I keep telling you: I am not Will Durant! My name is Bradley Stoddard. You must have the wrong number.” Then Durant hung up.

I called him back.

“Will,” I said, “Man has no wee —“ click!

I called him back.

“Will,” I said, “Man —“ click!

You see what I have to put up with!

Somebody suggested that I take my findings to John Hopkins University. So I did.

Right away Hopkins asked, “What are you educational credentials and what do you do for a living?”

“I graduated kindergarten and I’m a crackhead, John.”

Nothing came of the meeting.

You see how it is!

Good God, these fucking photons keep piling up on my rug! They come here from the sun, and sit around until I wake up and smile at me in the morning, but every day the sun sends more fucking photons! Where the hell am I going to put them all? Already things are so bright that everything is a field of white! You know what they say: Light is a condition of seeing, not the cause.

Well, fuck the photons. Let my talk to the rabbi.


“Rabbi, man has no wee frills.”

“Get the fuck away from me, you goddamned lunatic!”

You see what I have to put up with!

(End excerpt)

[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).

I know I answered this post earlier, but I wanted to add to it. I don't picture a bunch of elitist Ivy-leagues sitting in a room and speculating about things (sorry, I am not projecting anything) -- I am sure they set up their hypotheses and rigorously test them, but I do believe that if you are not an Ivy-league type, your chances of getting any ideas conventionally published is nill. BTW, who makes up the think tanks? Anyone who would dare say he discovered something as important as the removal of all evil ---and is not a member of academia --- is not going to be taken seriously. Someone told me that he should have gone to school so he wouldn't have had this problem. That may be true, but it was his independence that allowed him to think outside of the box.

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.

That's what I've been saying all along. This notion of the eyes not being a sense organ is not even a topic for discussion, let alone entering someone's mind. It's considered a fact, just as people stopped talking about the earth being flat when they learned it was a sphere.

[peacegirl]

I just went to the Anatomy and Physiology of Sight by the Lone Ranger. It's looks very detailed and informative. I will need to save it and read a little bit each day to get the most out of it. I don't want to skim over it, like people are doing with the book.

[wildernesse]

My husband is a scientist whose degree is not from an Ivy League school. It is from a state university that is the number one party school in the nation. He has never worked for an Ivy League school.

He is listed as an author on 14 scientific papers, published in a variety of peer-reviewed journals. On 10 of those, he is the first author or shares first authorship with a collaborator.

In 2005, he wrote a blog post on his personal blog in which he disputed the results of recently published scientific paper, and provided an alternative. He did not attempt to publish his thoughts in the scientific press, but was given credit for his idea in a later scientific paper that also explored this alternative idea. This was used as an example of how open-source information, like blogs, can inform and change science.

Once again, peacegirl, you draw the wrong conclusions because you are talking about something you don't know anything about. You are ignorant of scientific facts, the scientific method, and the scientific community.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just went to the Anatomy and Physiology of Sight by the Lone Ranger. It's looks very detailed and informative. I will need to save it and read a little bit each day to get the most out of it. I don't want to skim over it, like people are doing with the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Yes, but why? We mentioned Occam's Razor before:

If Lessan's observations of how vision works is correct, light cannot be the way we see objects. If light is not the way we see, why should light be a necessary condition for sight? Occam's razor says that this hypothesis is inferior because it requires both light and something else which permits us to see.

It requires the same thing that afferent vision requires. Light, eyes, and a brain. Without light, we cannot see anything. We all know this is true because we all have firsthand experience. I cannot see a thing in complete darkness. I'm sure no one in here can either.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

This is not proof that the theory is wrong - but it's a good indicator that other hypotheses should be tested first. Not surprisingly, current scientific theory started with a better hypothesis and has found it works very well with observable reality.

It's a logical and reasonable theory. But, just as david said, science needs to be flexible if there is evidence that contradicts the current thinking.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just went to the Anatomy and Physiology of Sight by the Lone Ranger. It's looks very detailed and informative. I will need to save it and read a little bit each day to get the most out of it. I don't want to skim over it, like people are doing with the book.

Shouldn't that be, THE BOOK.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

My husband is a scientist whose degree is not from an Ivy League school. It is from a state university that is the number one party school in the nation. He has never worked for an Ivy League school.

He is listed as an author on 14 scientific papers, published in a variety of peer-reviewed journals. On 10 of those, he is the first author or shares first authorship with a collaborator.

In 2005, he wrote a blog post on his personal blog in which he disputed the results of recently published scientific paper, and provided an alternative. He did not attempt to publish his thoughts in the scientific press, but was given credit for his idea in a later scientific paper that also explored this alternative idea. This was used as an example of how open-source information, like blogs, can inform and change science.

Once again, peacegirl, you draw the wrong conclusions because you are talking about something you don't know anything about. You are ignorant of scientific facts, the scientific method, and the scientific community.

But your husband graduated from a university. Don't tell me it was Florida State? I'm guessing because my oldest son went there and I remember someone saying that this was the number one party school in the nation. My father went to 7th grade. The first thing people asked him is what university did you graduate from?

I am not ignorant wildernesse. I know what I know, and I admit when I don't know. But just because I don't know certain facts doesn't mean I am ignorant of all facts. Maybe the scientific community has gotten more tolerant since the 1960's to the 1980's. I am just telling people here what Lessans went through, and how difficult it was for him because he was an outsider.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

science needs to be flexible if there is evidence that contradicts the current thinking.

Yes, if there is such evidence. So far none has been offered.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Shouldn't that be, THE BOOK.

Oh my, maybe I should give up the other and use this book instead.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yes, if there is such evidence. So far none has been offered.

That's why I am suggesting empirical testing, where possible. Obviously, empirical testing is impossible as to what happens after we die (I'm not talking about seeing the white light while someone is dying) because we don't get to come back and tell anyone. His knowledge as to what happens after we die could only have come from astute observation and sound reasoning.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Without light, we cannot see anything. We all know this is true because we all have firsthand experience. I cannot see a thing in complete darkness. I'm sure no one in here can either.

No shit!

And why is that? Because, well, light counces off objects, and enters the eye, which is a sense organ. Without the lights on, there are no photons to bounce off objects and enter the eyes, hence you can't see! Du-oh! But, according to the crackhead author, that's not what happens. That's not how we see! So, peacegirl, how do we see? What does it mean to say that "light is a ncessary condition. How is it a necssary condition, if it doesn't even reach the fucking optic nerve, as you maintain? (Oh, and maybe you'd like to explain what stops it from reaching the optic nerve, given that both you and the author admit it enters the eye because it causes the pupils to change size!

It's a logical and reasonable theory. But, just as david said, science needs to be flexible if there is evidence that contradicts the current thinking.

You don't even know what a "theory" is in science. Nor did the author of this trash. His babble is not even a hypothesis, still less a theory, since it is manifestly incoherent. Coherency is the minimum standard even for a working hypothesis.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I am suggesting empirical testing, where possible. Obviously, empirical testing is impossible as to what happens after we die (I'm not talking about seeing the white light while someone is dying) because we don't get to come back and tell anyone. His knowledge as to what happens after we die could only have come from astute observation and sound reasoning.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, it has already been tested. It is false. See the Lone Ranger's post for the explanation of how we see, and the role of the optic nerve. Since this has been verified, the author is wrong. The tests have already been done.