A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I mean when I say you aren't listening, and neither is LadyShea or Spacemonkey. You've got your opinions and you're on the warpath, without truly understanding this man's words. You are hurting those who are depending on you to give your objective thoughts regarding this work, when you have no friggin clue what it's about. This is a total and complete travesty.

Who is depending on davidm to give his objective thoughts regarding this work?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have repeatedly said that the properties of light do not change except for the fact that light does not bounce off of objects and get reflected bringing the image of the object to distant and faraway lands even when the object is no longer visible or present. I am stopping this part of the discussion. You can believe whatever you want.

peacegirl, the well observed, measured, documented and extensively commercially exploited properties of light are only a matter of belief to a schizophrenic.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He told me that if he had gone the usual route, he would have never made this discovery because he would not have read the books he read, or thought beyond the scope of what he was taught in school. Instead, he went far beyond what he could have learned from a formal education.

All I can say is that he told me that had he gone to college, he would not have moved in the direction he did, which ultimately allowed him to make this discovery.

Since he was probably schizophrenic just like you it is unlikely that an education would have made any difference.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have repeatedly said that the properties of light do not change except for the fact that light does not bounce off of objects and get reflected

That is changing the properties of light

Originally Posted by peacegirl

bringing the image of the object to distant and faraway lands even when the object is no longer visible or present. I am stopping this part of the discussion. You can believe whatever you want.

This is a retarded strawman about what I believe and what optics states. I do not believe "the image of the object" is brought anywhere and neither does anyone else.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, I do know. The book itself, with all its factual errors, faulty reasoning and awful writing style, is sufficient evidence that his efforts at self-education proved inadequate for the task that he set himself.

Lacking any evidence for the value of his alleged discovery that is an assumption that I am not prepared to make, even for a moment. The book could certainly have been done better. Whether he could have done it better, even with more formal education, is something we will never know. He could hardly have done worse.

Angakuk, there is always room at the bottom. Lessans could have been as schizophrenic as peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is your arrogance lifting its ugly head again LadyShea. You did not demonstrate a modal fallacy. I listed two examples of modal fallacies in clear print and Lessans' proof has nothing to do with them. Why should I defend against something that he didn't commit?

Does Lessans argument state that decisions are made necessarily (which is implied by the word compelled), meaning there is only one option that can possibly be chosen? If so, then he committed the modal fallacy because as you've since stated and even argued for, other choices could have possibly been made.

If there are multiple possible outcomes, then the final outcome is only actual, not necessary

I could have chosen to wear a red shirt, a blue shirt, or a green shirt
I chose to wear a red shirt
That I wore the red shirt does not mean I couldn't possibly have worn the blue or the green shirt.
That I wore a red shirt is an actual truth. There is no element of necessity, however, so it is not a necessary truth.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is your arrogance lifting its ugly head again LadyShea. You did not demonstrate a modal fallacy. I listed two examples of modal fallacies in clear print and Lessans' proof has nothing to do with them. Why should I defend against something that he didn't commit?

A schizophrenic has difficulty with basic reasoning.

[LadyShea]

Here are some excellent posts made by Kael on this topic, peacegirl

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

I typed this on my computer. That is an actual truth.
It was a possible truth before I did it. It was never a necessary truth for one simple reason: there are many, many factors that could easily have prevented me from typing this, ranging from personal choices to power failure to website errors. Since it is not true that this couldn't possibly have happened any other way, it is not a necessary truth, despite the fact that it did actually happen. Hence, it is possible for a truth to be actual but not necessary.

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Whether a truth is necessary does not change before or after the event. If it was not a necessary truth before the event it cannot be a necessary truth after the event. Possible and actual truths are the only ones that change before and after an event.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is changing the properties of light

This is a retarded strawman about what I believe and what optics states. I do not believe "the image of the object" is brought anywhere and neither does anyone else.

I don't care what word you use; you are splitting hairs. This is no strawman. You are stating that non-absorbed light strikes the retina after traveling through space and time, and that non-absorbed light is decoded in the brain.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what word you use; you are splitting hairs. This is no strawman. You are stating that non-absorbed light strikes the retina after traveling through space and time.

I am stating that light travels
I am stating that light has a wavelength
I am stating that when light encounters matter it is either absorbed, reflected or transmitted
I am stating that absorbed light is no longer light
Reflected and transmitted light, being light, travels and has not lost nor gained any properties
Light does strike the retina, as it strikes any or everything in it's path of travel

Do you agree or disagree with each of these properties of light?

What happens after that is off topic to the discussion of the properties of light

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If your father had actually made any discoveries then you might nearly have a point. But he didn't.


Where were those red photons at the film just a moment before the object turned red and the photograph was taken?

Where did Lessans support his listed presuppositions about conscience?

And are you presently in institutional care of any sort, or have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?


in 3... 2... 1...

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who is depending on davidm to give his objective thoughts regarding this work?

It's not that anybody is depending on davidm's thoughts, or your thoughts, or Spacemonkey's thoughts for that matter, but when they're all put together these responses can have a negative influence on the people listening.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that anybody is depending on davidm's thoughts, or your thoughts, or Spacemonkey's thoughts for that matter, but when they're all put together these responses can have a negative influence on the people listening.

Who is this fictional audience you keep imagining? Why do you imagine they cannot think for themselves? Why do you think they are likely to hold different opinions than any of those you actually interact with?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am stating that light travels
I am stating that light has a wavelength
I am stating that when light encounters matter it is either absorbed, reflected or transmitted
I am stating that absorbed light is no longer light
Reflected and transmitted light, being light, travels and has not lost nor gained any properties
Light does strike the retina, as it strikes any or everything in it's path of travel

Do you agree or disagree with each of these properties of light?

I agree that light travels, has a wavelength, and is absorbed, but I don't agree that non-absorbed light bounces off of objects and the photons strike the retina or film after traversing a certain distance. This does not mean that light doesn't travel because this has more to do with how the eyes work, then how light works, which Lessans tried to clarify when he said that we would see each other once the light got to Earth after 8.3 minutes.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree that light travels, has a wavelength, and is absorbed, but I don't agree that non-absorbed light bounces off of objects and the photons strike the retina or film after traversing a certain distance.

So then what do you think happens to the photons that hit an object and are not absorbed?

I ask because you have previously agreed that they bounce off and travel away from the object. So long as they do this, then nothing is stopping them from hitting a film or retina placed in their path.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Who is this fictional audience you keep imagining? Why do you imagine they cannot think for themselves? Why do you think they are likely to hold different opinions than any of those you actually interact with?

I don't think they are likely to hold different opinions than any of those I interact with because I know that group think is a huge problem. People can be swayed to side with the loudest, in your face type individual rather than think for themselves. I see how Angakuk took certain ideas that people espoused, such as the way the book was written, as a means to attack Lessans when the opportunity presented itself. Everything that is said, even when there's no actual proof that what is being said has any merit whatsoever, can easily be used against me at a later date, and it takes a very independent thinking person not to be influenced. Most people act like sheep following the herd.

[LadyShea]

So you used "those who are depending on you" why?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't agree that non-absorbed light bounces off of objects and the photons strike the retina or film after traversing a certain distance.

Which, if any, of the listed properties of light are you disagreeing with? What you said is not a listed property of light.

Do I need to number them?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then what do you think happens to the photons that hit an object and are not absorbed?

I ask because you have previously agreed that they bounce off and travel away from the object. So long as they do this, then nothing is stopping them from hitting a film or retina placed in their path.

I cannot believe you actually think I am going to answer you. You haven't changed a bit and until you do, I'm not engaging with you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think they are likely to hold different opinions than any of those I interact with because I know that group think is a huge problem. People can be swayed to side with the loudest, in your face type individual rather than think for themselves. I see how Angakuk took certain ideas that people espoused, such as the way the book was written, as a means to attack Lessans when the opportunity presented itself. Everything that is said, even when there's no actual proof that what is being said has any merit whatsoever, can easily be used against me at a later date, and it takes a very independent thinking person not to be influenced. Most people act like sheep following the herd.

Nope, YOU act like a sheep. Everyone else here can think for themselves and independently reach their own conclusions. You have never established or observed any groupthink here. This is just another of your many rationalizations for trying to explain away the uncomfortable fact that EVERYONE you talk to reaches the same negative conclusions concerning you, your father, and his claims.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot believe you actually think I am going to answer you. You haven't changed a bit and until you do, I'm not engaging with you.

Oops! Looks like I asked one of those questions you can't answer again. You don't have the faintest idea of what light is or how it's supposed to work even within your own non-model.

Time to !

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you used "those who are depending on you" why?

I want people to grasp this knowledge. I am not depending on anyone in particular, and no one is depending on me. I think it would be sad if people leave this forum having never understood the first thing about this book. This one guy pm'd me, and when I mentioned 'discovery', he said what discovery? He didn't have the slightest idea what the topic was about. Now that's sad.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope, YOU act like a sheep. Everyone else here can think for themselves and independently reach their own conclusions. You have never established or observed any groupthink here. This is just another of your many rationalizations for trying to explain away the uncomfortable fact that EVERYONE you talk to reaches the same negative conclusions concerning you, your father, and his claims.

The sad truth is the smarter someone thinks he is, the more difficult it is to break through his hardened way of thinking. I am not surprised that you are acting this way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which, if any, of the listed properties of light are you disagreeing with? What you said is not a listed property of light.

Do I need to number them?

I disagree with number five. You are assuming that the non-absorbed light is reflected. Yes, light is light, and photons are always being replaced, so there's no violation here, but there is an assumption that this pattern of light gets reflected and travels, which is a fallacy if Lessans is right. White light travels and we see objects because of light, but light doesn't travel and bring the pattern or image or non-absorbed wavelength light to us. Why are you even asking me these questions if you think Lessans is wrong?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I disagree with number five. You are assuming that the non-absorbed light is reflected.

What happens to it if it is not reflected? (To say that it is reflected means only that it bounces off and travels away. This is something you have agreed with.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, light is light, and photons are always being replaced, so there's no violation here...

Where did the photons go that got replaced?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but there is an assumption that this pattern of light gets reflected and travels, which is a fallacy if Lessans is right.

You've also previously agreed that a pattern of light gets reflected and travels. What prevents red photons from bouncing off and traveling away from the red parts of an object while blue photons bounce off and travel away from the blue parts of the object?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

White light travels and we see objects because of light, but light doesn't travel and bring the pattern or image or non-absorbed wavelength light to us.

"Pattern", "image", "light", and "wavelength" are NOT synonyms.

Only light travels. The wavelength is a property of the light. The light can travel in a pattern. That pattern is not an image. The pattern is not anything over and above or distinct from the light itself.