A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a very important point. Lessans claims that if we were on the star Rigel we would NOT be seeing Columbus discovering America from the light itself. In other words, the light has to be connected to the object from which it is being reflected. A camera is taking a snapshot of the object, not the light. The light is allowing the film to form an outline of the object, but without the object, the film would develop nothing at all. Scientists are saying that light alone contains the information, which is false.

The light is connected to the object by reflecting off the object. That reflected light contains information about the object, for example, which wavelengths of light were absorbed (color). I have yet to understand why Lessans' understanding of vision has to rule out that light transfers information from the object to the eye.

Plus, are you sure you understand what science knows about vision? Scientists understand that the object is the source of the information coming from light. What are they missing?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

The light is connected to the object by reflecting off the object. That reflected light contains information about the object, for example, which wavelengths of light were absorbed (color).

Erm, yes, and when the Lone Ranger discussed this earlier, I believe peacegirl said she agreed with it. So this means peacegirl thinks that the light contains information, while at the same time she thinks that it does not contain information. Well, that's a consistent point of view, isn't it!

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by davidm

Erm, yes, and when the Lone Ranger discussed this earlier, I believe peacegirl said she agreed with it. So this means peacegirl thinks that the light contains information, while at the same time she thinks that it does not contain information. Well, that's a consistent point of view, isn't it!

I suspect that peacegirl did not understand what she was agreeing to. I suspect that peacegirl will agree to observations as long as she thinks they don't contradict with the book.

I think I kind of get what peacegirl/Lessans were trying to say with all of this "screens of undeniable substance" stuff. I think Lessans is trying to disprove Plato's Cave - that we observe the "real" object, but our brains apply filters to it.

Like peacegirl says, this is an important point, however, it's wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

1. He does not have any knowledge.

2. Fake "science" and pseudophilosophy isn't going to prevent anyone from feeling inferior.

Sketchy at best?

Good God girl, I ask you again, did you, or did you not, read The Lone Ranger's essay on how we see? It is detailed down to the atomic level, and, as he pointed out, it was just an overview. There are fat textbooks written about this stuff.

Really? What?

Yes, we are back to your typical slander, the way that the scientific community was slandered by Lessans. People have read what he said. It's wrong.

He had his chance, and he blew it.

Oh, and see my posts above, asking for details about these "screens of undeniable substance."

For someone as smart as you claim to be david, how could you miss his explanation? Were you sleeping?

[peacegirl]

[quote=Demimonde;936750]

Maybe that's true davidm, but it could also be that his observation had some merit. I'm not going to lie and say I AM SURE because I'm not.

No, peacegirl. You have repeatedly said that this is an undeniable, scientific, mathimatical truth. That it is fact that if we only understood we could see. So the above statement reeks.

Who the hell are you? Please go back to your cave.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is a valued contributor to the board who makes a hell of a lot more sense than you.

Wonderful, that he is a contributor to the board, but HE MAKES NO SENSE TO ME IN RELATION TO THIS DISCOVERY. HE NEVER GAVE ME ANY CLUE THAT HE UNDERSTOOD ANYTHING, AND HIS WORDS SHOWED ME HE DID NOT.

Originally Posted by Demimonde

Also, why the popcorn? You insult a poster and then post the audience bit after telling him to leave?

If I had any question in my mind that you were not a troll, it is dispelled now.

I don't even know who you are. You could be just as confused as he is. So should I just agree because you tell me I'm wrong? No way. Unless you show me what it is exactly that YOU disagree with, then I will assume you aren't sure either. For all I know, the entire trajectory of science could go in the wrong direction (if you were a top scientist who everyone listened to) based on the [hidden] fact that you're in a fight with your boyfriend and you want to make things right between you.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For all I know, the entire trajectory of science could go in the wrong direction (if you were a top scientist who everyone listened to) based on the [hidden] fact that you're in a fight with your boyfriend and you want to make things right between you.

Will you please stop saying such things?

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, that's not how science works! It's dishonest to keep saying that it is.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason their vision isn’t clear can be answered by the second question, which asks about babies' ability to see detail, or their visual acuity. Visual acuity is dependent on the optical components of the eye (like the lens), but more importantly it is dependent on the functioning of the retina and the brain. This means that even thought the optics of the eye are mature, infants still can’t see as well as adults because brain areas responsible for vision are still immature. To use the camera analogy, the reason that infants' vision is blurry is because of the "film", not the lens. The retina (the film of the eye), in addition to other visual parts of the brain, is incompletely developed in infants.

This hardly helps Lessans' case. First, it's well-understood and not the least bit controversial that a properly-developed brain is necessary for vision. Who on Earth contests that? What Lessans does not provide is a single scrap of evidence that the brain in any way "projects" information to the retina, or that the optic nerve contains any efferent fibers at all.


I should also point out that it is a demonstrated fact that newborns can see, and can even recognize faces. That it takes a while for them to fine-tune the mechanism so that they can see well is beside the point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just googled this but I have to register to read the article, which I'm not going to do right now. If anyone wants to, let me know what it says. Maybe they're just talking about efferent motor nerves.

The basic anatomy of the optic nerve and visual ...
ity to be Homo sapiens. This has become increasingly true in recent centuries, ... the axons of the optic nerve. The nerve fiber layer con- ..... vision does not reside only in the eyes. I hope it is ... al system is a very complicated network of afferent and efferent connections spread through several regions of ...

iospress.metapress.com/index/RW1646264741L86L.pdf

The author is describing the nature of the retina and of the visual pathway. He also describes how the muscles that move the eyes and that control the pupillary response are innervated.

As he repeatedly points out in the article, the optic nerve is made of the axons of the ganglion cells in the retina -- that is, it is made of afferent nerve fibers.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For all I know, the entire trajectory of science could go in the wrong direction (if you were a top scientist who everyone listened to) based on the [hidden] fact that you're in a fight with your boyfriend and you want to make things right between you.

Could you name [a top scientist who everyone listened to]? It would be great if you could, and if you could tell us what research they have done which is relevant to everyone. A person who is currently living, of course, otherwise they aren't going to be much help to you and the book anyway.

I have met, spoken with, and have half a clue about the research of a handful of members of the National Academy of Science, but I don't think that any of them could be described as someone whom everyone listened to, as if they are making pronouncements on how the world works as a whole. Maybe everyone in their discipline listens to them, or thinks their work is foundational, but that doesn't mean it is especially relevant to other disciplines. Most of them probably aren't even known outside their discipline, even if what they do is pretty neat. I'm not some special individual with access to the great halls of science, either--I went to a state university. I'm the wife of a research scientist and attend social events with my husband. I was a secretary in an academic department at a state university.

Also, your statement only highlights your ignorance of the scientific community and the scientific methods used to illuminate scientific facts. It supports my earlier comments, which you huffily denied. Science does not work the way that you describe in this comment, and if that is all you know, then you clearly do not know anything about it at all.

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by davidm

Erm, yes, and when the Lone Ranger discussed this earlier, I believe peacegirl said she agreed with it. So this means peacegirl thinks that the light contains information, while at the same time she thinks that it does not contain information. Well, that's a consistent point of view, isn't it!

Yeah, but we could all be brains in a vat for all we know. If so, there's no way we could tell the difference. In which case if we look around, say, at the lamp shining in front of us -- or, anything else for that matter -- what are we looking at? The light shining from the lamp? Not hardly. All we see is the light shining from the lamp inside our head. Hmm ... how does that work?

It's almost as if the lamp has to exist in two separate and distinct domains/worlds in order for this to happen. I wonder if this is what the folks who practice Eckankar experience when they go off on their little journeys? Although I suppose it's quite similar if, in fact it's not the same thing, to what those who have had OBE's claim. Or, it might help to explain the phenomenon behind remote viewing.

Anyway, it tends to suggest both worlds are conducted and coexist at the same time but, coordinated from some other place or domain. So, all we require in order to see and/or experience anything, is an exchange of information ... meaning, nothing need not necessarily exist outside of that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

The light is connected to the object by reflecting off the object. That reflected light contains information about the object, for example, which wavelengths of light were absorbed (color). I have yet to understand why Lessans' understanding of vision has to rule out that light transfers information from the object to the eye.

I agreed with The Lone Ranger that light gives us information about the object that the light is a reflection of, but the light apart from the object will give no information at all. It was logical to think this was happening, but due to Lessans' observations, it is not what is happening. Try to take a picture with a camera that is directly in line with an object but slightly in front of it, and see if you get any information about said object. You should get some information if it's in the light, correct? That would be a valid experiment.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Plus, are you sure you understand what science knows about vision? Scientists understand that the object is the source of the information coming from light. What are they missing?

The only thing they are missing is the 'false' belief that the light itself is carrying the information [of the object] whereby signals are then transmitted to the brain for decoding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

[

We've all read it carefully peacegirl, a board of very educated people, and we keep telling you it doesn't mean a fucking thing.

Would you therefore care to elaborate? What is this "screen"? Is it a physical structure in the eye? Because if Lessans says that it is, no one has ever found it!

I told you what it means. Picture the world as a screen, and we are seeing the screen through our eyes in real time. The screen of undeniable substance has nothing to do with a physical structure in the eye, that's why you can't find it. Undeniable substance means any substance that can be identified in real life such as a computer, a dog, a cat, a tree, a house, etc. These are real bits of substance that exist apart from our perception.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right about reading the posts in the order in which they were written, but sometimes I like having a conversation in real time which means I post something and then the person who is online responds. Unfortunately, the previous posts take a back seat. But I try to catch up at one point or another. I will try to be more conscious of their order because it does mess up the flow of conversation.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans was also a philosopher. His knowledge came from philosophical discussion, even though it is factual. I write this on the copyright page.

Although this discovery was borne out of philosophical thought, it
is factual, not theoretical, in nature.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Even if he was a philosopher, that does not prevent comparing him, his abilities, and his ideas to Socrates from being laughable.

He never overtly compared himself to Socrates, or anyone else.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Nothing that you posted in response to me supports the idea that Lessans was as notable a contributor to philosophy as Socrates. Therefore, the idea [Lessans is accurately comparable to Socrates] is still without merit and silly.

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. Never did he compare himself to Socrates. That one dialogue was meant to be funny, but not to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I said that because he does not let the idea stand for itself and instead sets himself up as a benefactor of mankind. A person who thinks he is a benefactor of mankind likely has a problem with self-aggrandizement.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So according to you any person who had to explain his findings in as much detail as possible has a problem with self-aggrandizement. I don't agree.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

NO. A person who says or thinks he is a benefactor of mankind likely has a problem with self-aggrandizement. [A person who had to explain his findings in as much detail as possible] is not the same as [a person who says or thinks he is a benefactor of mankind]. These are not synonymous concepts at all, and to restate my idea in this way shows either that you can't read or that you are dishonestly trying to attribute an idea to me that is not mine.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Quoted for posterity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are coming to an incorrect conclusion about this man. He was just showing that predicting an eclipse is not the same as giving something to mankind and not having the exact coordinates as to when the transition will occur. You keep telling me he had a problem with self-aggrandizement, and I am telling you he was humble.(emphasis added)

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Yes, the portion I emphasized above is what is happening. However, I have a reason--because he called himself a benefactor of mankind--behind what I say. You have only your word, which is pretty worthless to me.

I have no control over what you think is worthless. I am telling you that he was comparing an event such as an eclipse which we can predict, and something that depends on people's involvement. Don't make more out of this than what was intended.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Ok, I'm tired of this pointless game. I hope you are a troll or some kind of machine.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I am just a person, not a machine. If you are tired of this, please move on wildernesse. It upsets me that I'm making you tired. I don't want to be responsible for your reaction, but that's how I feel.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I appreciate that you did not deny you were a troll.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now troll and machine have been added to the list of stupid, incapable of higher order thinking, a liar and dishonest. Quite a description, I must say.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

LOL.

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

While TLR's essay is good and conclusive, the sad fact proves it is above peacegirl's comprehension. She did not read it, which is why she cannot address it. If she proved honest she would have questions on all of the areas she does not understand. But she is not.

Just another charlatan selling the snake-oil of stupidity.

--J.D.

The details are very interesting, and I have to read it very carefully in order to ask intelligent questions. I thank the Lone Ranger for posting this for my benefit as well as everyone reading this thread. But the model itself, according to Lessans, is not explaining what is really going on when it comes to the signalling of information. That is his only disagreement.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I told you I am not sure how the brain is able to do this except to say that an electric current from the stimulation of the other senses causes the brain to awaken (so to speak) and focus the eyes on the outside world. Until this is confirmed, there is no point in asking the mechanics of how this occurs. People wouldn't take it seriously.

There are books that have no punctuation and are considered classics, so that's BS. If you knew that this book was valid, you would read it even if it was written in crayon on a rooftop.

If I am reading him correctly, the screen is the object itself. When we assign particular qualities and values to an object (qualities and values that are not inherent in the object itself) it is as though we are projecting our bias and prejudices upon the object itself. If that is what Lessans is saying, it is not a particularly controversial or original idea. This idea is apparently the backdoor that led Lessans to the notion that the eye is not sense organ. However, there is nothing about this idea that requires that the eye not be a sense organ. His "backdoor" opens only into the garden of his own imagination.

Yes it does, and if you try to understand why, you will see that he is right.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to use the quote function, maybe it's not the most efficient way, but at least I'm letting people know who is doing the talking.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If you use the quote function in conjunction with the preview post function, then you can see, in the preview window, whether or not you have used the quote function correctly. If, in some instances, you have not used it correctly you can then make corrections to the post before you post it.

The preview does not show the finished product, so it doesn't really help.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Alternatively, if you read your own posts after you have posted them, and discover that you have made some mistake in the use of the quote function, you can then use the edit function to correct those mistakes. Please make a point of doing so.

I do that all the time, but I don't use the quote button the way you do. As long as you can understand who is talking, then that's all that matters.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you keep saying, but if his knowledge prevents people from feeling as if they are inferior productions of the human race, I think that's a pretty big reason.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your argument is conditional upon his knowledge performing as advertised. As we have no evidence that it will perform as advertised, there is no compelling reason to give it serious consideration. It is a bit like asking someone to invest in a company that makes cars that run on water, without providing a working prototype or, at the very least, engineering specifications that provide a reasonable expectation that the car will work as advertised.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when words of critical judgment as well as standards of beauty and ugliness are removed from the environment, no child will grow up to have an inferiority complex or feel less worthy than anyone else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That goes back to Lessans' observations. And I said many times that someone who is a sniper might not look like he has a justification, but if you examine his background you will find rage that manifests in this way. It is an indirect retaliatory response. Lessans writes:

In order to hurt another, man must be able to derive
some satisfaction from this, which means that he was previously hurt
and is justified to retaliate, or else he knows, absolutely and positively,
that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they
knew.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are doing it again. What you have provided is neither an explanation or evidence in support of the claim. It is just Lessans' unsupported assertion about how he thinks conscience works. No reasons are given for why we ought to think that his claim has merit and thus deserves to be further investigated.

I can only cite his observations (which are noteworthy) and some examples of empirical studies that show that very young children know the difference between right and wrong because their conscience is in full working order. If you want further proof, more empirical studies need to be done, but you don't throw his observations out as if they are inaccurate, especially when the claims are as farreaching as these.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They really aren't giving Lessans a chance because they won't dare entertain the thought that he could be right. That would make them suckers.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You appear to be assigning base motives to peoples' actions without sufficient justification for doing so. What is your evidence for this being the reason that these people (whoever they may be) are rejecting Lessans' claims?

I'm just guessing based on inferences from what other people have said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But whether the light needs to impinge on the optic nerve in order to see an object, or whether the optic nerve could be activated because of the properties of light and of the eye itself --- is still an open question.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The two are the same. That "light needs to impinge on the optic nerve in order to see an object" is a function of the combined "properties of light and of the eye itself". There is no question here, open or otherwise.

I just wonder if we found out that the eyes are efferent, would this change anything? Just asking.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Try to take a picture with a camera that is directly in line with an object but slightly in front of it, and see if you get any information about said object. You should get some information if it's in the light, correct?

If you base this on how you understand the current state of knowledge regarding light, cameras, sight, and information, you sorely need to revisit those ideas, because you're getting it very wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That would be a valid experiment.

You do not appear to have a solid grasp of what that phrase means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing they are missing is the 'false' belief that the light itself is carrying the information [of the object] whereby signals are then transmitted to the brain for decoding.

It is interesting that you put 'false' in quotation marks, considering the common reason for doing so is to cast doubt on the applicability of the term. This is exactly how sight works, as shown by centuries of accumulated evidence and validated by all the optical technology that surrounds us today, including the very computer you sit at to post in this thread! If it worked anything like Lessans' claims, insofar as they can even be parsed into a coherent model of the physical phenomena that cause sight, none of these technologies would work the way they do, if they worked at all.

The most important part:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was logical to think this was happening, but due to Lessans' observations, it is not what is happening.

This, of course, highlights exactly why this thread is rapidly approaching 100 pages and no progress has been made at all. You have already accepted that Lessans' ideas (ostensibly formed through his observations of... something, it's never clear what exactly) are correct, and thus his observations are correct, and thus the current understanding is wrong, no matter how much evidence supports it and how little supports Lessans. This is academic to you, definitional, inherent. It can be no other way, and considering other possibilities is absurd in the extreme, akin to musing on the idea that water is, in fact, dry.

But, also of course, it is terribly fascinating to watch, and I can't seem to stop checking the new posts in this thread, despite the obvious futility of it all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I would like to make two astute observations of my own.

1. On several occasions peacegirl has suggested that, in order to get the full benefit of Lessans' work, we ought to provisionally accept his premises. This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. After all, most works of science/fantasy fiction require that the reader engage in a willing suspension of disbelief in order to get the most enjoyment out of the work. I see no reason why we should not treat Lessans' book in the same manner.

2. When she is asked for evidence in support of Lessans' claims, peacegirl often simply quotes Lessans making those claims. I believe that she does this because, for her, Lessans' claims, in and of themselves, constitute sufficient evidence for the truth of those claims. If Lessans said that something was a scientific/mathematical/undeniable truth, then it must be so. What more evidence could one possibly require? It is true that saying something is so does not make it so, for us. However, if Lessans said it was so, then it must be so.

If Lessans said it was so, does not make it so, which is true. The only thing that counts is whether his observations were spot on. Suspending disbelief would at the very least allow you to read the rest of the book without the need to confront him at every turn. It would also give you a glimpse of what the new world will look like, if he turns out to be right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

If you base this on how you understand the current state of knowledge regarding light, cameras, sight, and information, you sorely need to revisit those ideas, because you're getting it very wrong.

Where am I getting it wrong? Lessans was not disputing the current state of knowledge, except for that one very important distinction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That would be a valid experiment.

Originally Posted by kael

You do not appear to have a solid grasp of what that phrase means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing they are missing is the 'false' belief that the light itself is carrying the information [of the object] whereby signals are then transmitted to the brain for decoding.

Originally Posted by kael

It is interesting that you put 'false' in quotation marks, considering the common reason for doing so is to cast doubt on the applicability of the term. This is exactly how sight works, as shown by centuries of accumulated evidence and validated by all the optical technology that surrounds us today, including the very computer you sit at to post in this thread! If it worked anything like Lessans' claims, insofar as they can even be parsed into a coherent model of the physical phenomena that cause sight, none of these technologies would work the way they do, if they worked at all.

That is not true. Are you telling me that science can never make a mistake? All the technologies would work exactly the same way because this observation doesn't change anything other than man's true relationship to the external world. It is a fact that objects absorb and reflect light. The only difference is that, according to Lessans, we see objects directly instead of creating images through signals in the brain. That's it.

The most important part:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was logical to think this was happening, but due to Lessans' observations, it is not what is happening.

Originally Posted by kael

This, of course, highlights exactly why this thread is rapidly approaching 100 pages and no progress has been made at all. You have already accepted that Lessans' ideas (ostensibly formed through his observations of... something, it's never clear what exactly) are correct, and thus his observations are correct, and thus the current understanding is wrong, no matter how much evidence supports it and how little supports Lessans. This is academic to you, definitional, inherent. It can be no other way, and considering other possibilities is absurd in the extreme, akin to musing on the idea that water is, in fact, dry.

No, it's not inherent or definitional. He says definitions mean nothing as far as reality is concerned. The only thing that matters is whether his observations describe reality accurately. If he claimed that one plus one equals three and gave all kinds of reasons, he would be absolutely wrong because empirical evidence shows us that it is two.

Originally Posted by kael

But, also of course, it is terribly fascinating to watch, and I can't seem to stop checking the new posts in this thread, despite the obvious futility of it all.

I believe the people who keep coming back are either being entertained by this, or are giving him the benefit of the doubt that he could possibly be right.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agreed with The Lone Ranger that light gives us information about the object that the light is a reflection of, but the light apart from the object will give no information at all. It was logical to think this was happening, but due to Lessans' observations, it is not what is happening. Try to take a picture with a camera that is directly in line with an object but slightly in front of it, and see if you get any information about said object. You should get some information if it's in the light, correct? That would be a valid experiment.

The entire point that people have been trying to make to you with respect to how sight works is that the eye (or a camera) can form an image (and relay it to the brain) only if it is receiving light that was either reflected from or emitted by the object in question.

So if you place a camera such that the lens of the camera is not receiving light that is reflected from the object, it can't form an image of the object -- it doesn't matter how much light is bathing the object in question.

So of course you can't take a picture of an object if the camera is facing away from the object and can't receive light reflected from or emitted by it. This is the same reason why you can't see anything behind you -- it doesn't matter how much light the object is emitting or reflecting, if the light can't enter your eye, then you can't see it.


That's the entire point of what everyone has been trying to tell you about how vision works. You can't see anything unless light that is reflected from or emitted by the object in question is entering your eye. That light is then transduced by the retinal cells into neural impulses that are relayed by the optic nerve to the brain for interpretation.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never overtly compared himself to Socrates, or anyone else.

Since I was making the point in this particular exchange about your hyperbolic claims about Lessans, it does not matter if he made the comparison or not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no control over what you think is worthless. I am telling you that he was comparing an event such as an eclipse which we can predict, and something that depends on people's involvement. Don't make more out of this than what was intended.

Actually, you have a lot of control in whether I consider your word worthless or not. You could post sensibly, provide supporting details and reasons for what you claim, build relationships, stop acting butthurt when people don't do what you want, etc. You choose not to do so, apparently.

You also completely miss the point of what I was saying to begin with, but I know you have a reading comprehension problem and I don't care to slog through it with you any more.

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For someone as smart as you claim to be david, how could you miss his explanation? Were you sleeping?

An unprecedented four-faint special!

What fucking explanation? Explain his explanation!

However, you can't. You can't even respond to the thread that The Lone Ranger started in which he explains clearly, down to atomic detail, the nature of light and sight. You have ignored that thread!

And you expect to be taken for anything other than a lunatic?

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The preview does not show the finished product, so it doesn't really help.

You are wrong. The preview post button exists only to show you the finished post before it is posted to the thread. Maybe you need to scroll up to see the preview after you have pressed the button.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do that all the time, but I don't use the quote button the way you do. As long as you can understand who is talking, then that's all that matters.

Sometimes you mislabel the people who are talking, though, which is not helping people understand who is talking. I gave you examples of that in two of the last few posts I made--you made stupid mistakes in quoting that entirely changed the conversation. I make stupid mistakes in quoting people, too, even when I use the preview button--but I try to go back and edit it so that the formatting is presentable. You do not.

If you would stop saying that you are trying to post sensibly, I wouldn't care that much. But you allege that you are trying, without any evidence--just like practically every other allegation you have made in this thread.

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wonderful, that he is a contributor to the board, but HE MAKES NO SENSE TO ME IN RELATION TO THIS DISCOVERY. HE NEVER GAVE ME ANY CLUE THAT HE UNDERSTOOD ANYTHING, AND HIS WORDS SHOWED ME HE DID NOT.

There is no discovery, there is nothing to understand, and you are a fuckwit.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you what it means. Picture the world as a screen, and we are seeing the screen through our eyes in real time.

No, we are not seeing the world in real time, you arrogant, presumptuous little ignoramus, for all the many reasons that have already been shown to you.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing they are missing is the 'false' belief that the light itself is carrying the information [of the object] whereby signals are then transmitted to the brain for decoding.

Oh, rully? Then what is happening, dunce?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The details are very interesting, and I have to read it very carefully in order to ask intelligent questions. I thank the Lone Ranger for posting this for my benefit as well as everyone reading this thread. But the model itself, according to Lessans, is not explaining what is really going on when it comes to the signalling of information. That is his only disagreement.

Lessans was a half-wit.