A revolution in thought

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It might appear that the parakeet recognized you by your features alone, but it could have been the sound of your entrance (e.g., the way in which you opened the door.) or the colors of your outfit that he was not familiar with. There are still other cues that you might not have considered as a dead giveaway that you were not his owners. In other words, you might not have isolated all of the variables to prove that it was his your face that was responsible for his recognition.

Yeah, I'll concede that. In fact, he probably recognized the scent of Avon's honeysuckle perfume that I used to wear all the time.

Not only that, I'm pretty sure thing the only thing my anecdote conclusively demonstrates is that some birds sure can hold a grudge. Even when that grudge is based on faulty information.

[SharonDee]

Ooh, more anecdotal stuff: My sister had a toy poodle that absolutely knew when he was seeing an animal on TV. He'd pretty much ignore the box when anything else was on but when a dog or a cat or other four-legged critter came on, they'd have to change the channel so he'd stop trying to attack the TV.

[Stephen Maturin]

[specious_reasons]

I figured one way to fulfill wildernesse's desire to get to 100 pages is to start posting puppy pictures.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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 don't believe you.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, I don't trust only one sample of anything. A dog going to a bowl with food in it and connecting that with the pointing of a finger on a wall is suspicious.

Fortunately you don't have a sample of one! You have the multiple studies that the Lone Ranger cited, you have the video of the dog from MythBusters, you have this study, you have citations of studies dealing with birds too!

That you have chosen to ignore them is just because you're a dogmatic twit.

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by peacegirl
davidm, are you still taking a nap? Wake up and read the posts, please. Who in the world is talking about a method that is faster than light? As fast as it takes for me to turn my head and look at an object is the length of time it takes for me to see whatever it is I'm looking at. All that is necessary is for the object to be large enough to be seen by the naked eye, and for said object to be reflecting light.

Not all of light is reflected PEACEgirl, or you would go blind after a while.
just the colour of the object reflects back to your eyes. The rest of the spectrum of light is absorbed.

Some of us love to fight, some of us love to see a good fight, we infact "ENJOY" watching CNN (Something like a feeling of false togetherness when one is for example ridiculed or attacked in a group.)

Man needs to fight to learn, it is just man.

Only aliëns could make us maybe unite.

God especially gave us war, God especially gave us crime.

A parent may not and never say how his or her child must feel, a parent can all the more let his or her child feel.


Find out for yourself and you will learn is God's way.

But really, a solution for war and crime is

UTTERLY BULLSHIT

[Vivisectus]

They use to think the idea that the earth was round was not only improbable, but impossible. And look how science has changed its thinking over centuries. Many empirical studies are not conclusive, yet people use them to justify their own theories. I see this on television a lot regarding health studies. One week they come up with some new study, and the following week they come up with a different study that contradicts the first one. These studies don't mean much as far as I'm concerned. My question to you is if something is absolutely undeniable (such as the eyes being a sense organ because of their thoroughly-verified understandings), then that would mean that he can't be right. But is there a possibility that even though they believe their best-tested understandings of how the eyes work are correct, is there a chance that the optic nerve allows for sight even though the fibers are afferent, or that there could be some other explanation? In other words, do you believe this discussion a total waste of time?

You know that TV you are watching? It just transmits light

also - WRONG - the earth being a globe was one of many competing theories that was around for a long time. Ever since the scientific method has become widely accepted, that kind of stuff doesn't really happen anymore because we have stopped taking books that we pre-suppose are right and infallible and try to warp reality so it fits the book.

There is also a possibility that Russels Teapot exists. Why do you reject it but embrace Lessans weird idea about how the eyes work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

TRANSLATION: It's way over my head, and all that sciency stuff is hard. Besides, it shows that Daddy was nuts. I prefer to believe what Daddy said.

You don't even need to hurt your brain reading it, peacegirl. Here's the Reader's Digest version, also posted by TLR:

That's it. End of story. Lessans was wrong. He was more than wrong, since he never actually offered a theory. His writings on vision and light are incoherent.

I understood what the Lone Ranger had expressed to me. I did not need your recapitulation. Maybe the example I gave was wrong because the lens has to be focusing or receiving the light that is being emitted from said object. See, I admit when I'm wrong. Do you? But that still does not answer the question of whether we can see efferently or afferently? It's far from being the end of story even if you think it is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

I see you squirming.

Ipse dixit, but incorrect, with a dash of cowardly argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam: you are the unabashed liar again.

I have simply observed that you have FAIL'd, for years, to account for the criticisms raised against this codswallop. We cannot excuse your lies, your tantrums, with mere ignorance. No, you have been shown all of this before, willfully ignored it, then moved on trying to sell it to some other group. You are an Amway saleswoman reacting to the observation, "but it is all just a pyramid scam."

--J.D.

No it isn't Doctor X. You are taking the fact that I have been on the internet as my being wrong because you believe that all these people could not be wrong about this book. Therefore, you are coming to a false conclusion that Lessans must be wrong. Can you imagine how it was centuries ago when someone dared to disagree with the thinking of the day? They were persecuted. You believe these criticisms prove that he is wrong and I'm just willfully ignorant. That is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The obituary does, however, note that Mr. Lessans was a retired salesman. The fruit didn't fall far from the tree in this instance.

(On a much cooler note, he was a championship caliber pool player with a special affinity for 9-ball, which is quite badass.)

The fact that he was a salesman doesn't mean he was a snake oil salesman. Obviously, he needed to make a commission, but he presented his pitch honestly. If people didn't need a home improvement, he wouldn't try to fool them into believing they did. So don't use the fact that he was a salesman by trade to imply that he must have been slick or dishonest. Do you see what you people do? They twist all kinds of things to make it look like it's in your favor, but it's not. This man was so honest that he would pay you back a nickel if he owed it to you. A salesman was his trade, and he was darn good at it. He closed the majority of his sales, but would never scam someone. He sold home improvements which did give him the time to read literature and philosophy during his off hours.

He was known all over the state as being a unequaled 9 ball champ. And he never hustled people. He use to come home and say he won 50. Cents.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

However, if Lessans said it was so, then it must be so.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yep, that's basically it. The "evidence," such as it is, lies in peacegirl's contentions that (1) if Mr. Lessans were wrong, he would have acknowledged it, and (2) it is impossible that Mr. Lessans was incorrect but simply didn't know it. That is indeed the functional equivalent of "if Lessans said it was so, then it must be so."

Einstein knew he was right. Just because it was impossible for Einstein to be incorrect does translate to "if Einstein said it was so, then it must be so."

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Birds fly, fish swim and dishonest people say dishonest things. You might as well try telling a Republican legislator to refrain from diapering up and supporting the sex industry through direct cash involvement. Positing the existence of a Queen of Science whose severe Hysterical Lady Syndrome distorts the whole of scientific knowledge is rather tame compared to some of the other pants-on-fire contentions we've seen in this here thread.

Oh my godddd, I was soooo joking. I should have put (I'm being sarcastic) next to that post.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Wow, what a cool picture! Thanks. It just shows that there could be what appears to be exceptions to the rule.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Angakuk;937110]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In that case there is indeed no point in having any discussion of Lessans' "theory of sight", because none of it is going to be confirmed. It is not going to be be confirmed because it is not true.

Only empirical testing will prove his observations true or false.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Possibly, or I might just wait for the movie.

You could, but you would lose out on your limited [edition].

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I sincerely doubt that.

I said it wouldn't be normal not to doubt, but you need to give him the benefit of that doubt. That is how science should work. When science is most skeptical is the time they need to contain that skepticism so that further investigation can take place.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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 Angakuk

Nor does it take a rocket scientist to point out that, even if all the words that are currently in use for expressing critical judgements are taken out of circulation, people will still make critical judgements. They will simply find new words to express those judgements. This is what people do.

Yes, that is what they do in a free will environment. You cannot even envision what the world will look like when there is no more blame, criticism, or criticial judgment from parents to children. What children see is what they model, so there is no comparison that can be accurately made.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

There you have it, argument and counter-argument. Neither of us has introduced anything resembling actual evidence, but that is alright because all that matters is that my argument is at least as sound as yours. Now, if you somehow managed to introduce some actual evidence to support your argument then I would have to do same. If I fail to offer such evidence then I am screwed.

I'm not providing evidence in this thread, but I am telling you that you cannot project what you think that's what people do, when you don't know what people will do under changed conditions.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Throughout this thread there are numerous instances where this has taken place. In each case, however, it has been Lessans critics who have introduced evidence and consequently it has been you and Lessans who have received the screwing.

Nothing but nothing that people have used to criticize Lessans has been proven evidence to the contrary, so I can say with confidence that Lessans and me have not been screwed in the slightest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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 Angakuk

We are, however, quite at liberty to throw out his observations as if they were inaccurate when they are, in fact, inaccurate, which is most of the time.

You can't throw out his observations because they have not been proven to be inaccurate. You can think they are inaccurate, guess they are inaccurate, believe they are inaccurate, but you cannot tell me that you proved they were inaccurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I suppose it would make a difference, were such the case.

So instead of telling me right off the bat that there is no question here, open or otherwise, have a little patience. I mean think about it. I am here for the first time and have spent a considerable amount of time discussing his claims, but all of these claims are completely new to you. You really need to delay judgment and your premature conclusions. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking for anyone to agree without more evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The fact that most of his observations are not spot-on means that we are free to ignore most of what he has to say.

You don't know that Angakuk, so you could read the book with the understanding that it's science fiction until proved otherwise. But you would gain so much from reading it because there is a lot of great information even though your agreement with his premises is pending.

[peacegirl]

I was thinking about the eye muscles in regard to focussing. The neck muscles are voluntary muscles that do require a bit more strength for an infant to be able to lift his head. But the eyes muscles are more reflexive and involuntary. Even if the eye muscles that could cause strabismis were causing a problem with focussing, this is also an involuntary muscle. I don't think you can compare neck muscles with eye muscles Lone Ranger. Sorry.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You know that TV you are watching? It just transmits light

The only "light" that any of us sees when we look at the world around us exists somewhere in the back of our head. We aren't looking at anything "real" with respect to the light or, for that matter anything else. The whole thing is remote, and exists only by virtue of the transfer of information that simulates the entire experience inside the brain. In which case I ask, where does the light or, in fact the entire Universe come from if this is all it is?

In other words, how does the transfer of information constitute a whole Universe inside ourselves? Is it simply a matter of the brain reflecting the information it receives from the outside? If so, that means our sense of self, or identity, is a reflection of the outside world as well, right? If that's the case, what do we need a mind for? ... or rather, at what point does all this information begin to "self-reflect?"

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was thinking about the eye muscles in regard to focussing. The neck muscles are voluntary muscles that do require a bit more strength for an infant to be able to lift his head. But the eyes muscles are more reflexive and involuntary. Even if the eye muscles that could cause strabismis were causing a problem with focussing, this is also an involuntary muscle. I don't think you can compare neck muscles with eye muscles Lone Ranger. Sorry.

Seriously? That's the angle you're going to take against a guy who is an actual biologist? What are you going to use to argue your case, the time you spent browsing Wikipedia?

Nothing but nothing that people have used to criticize Lessans has been proven evidence to the contrary.

Nothing but nothing that you'll acknowledge, anyway. All that evidence and data is obviously "sketchy" given that it contradicts the mental wankery you've invested significant portions of your life in.

you cannot tell me that you proved they were inaccurate.

We can, and have, and will, all with infinitely more evidence than Lessans provides for his pet theory (since he provided none at all). That you remain too mentally and emotionally invested to accept this evidence remains your problem.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

Ooh, more anecdotal stuff: My sister had a toy poodle that absolutely knew when he was seeing an animal on TV. He'd pretty much ignore the box when anything else was on but when a dog or a cat or other four-legged critter came on, they'd have to change the channel so he'd stop trying to attack the TV.

Oh my goddd, that does not prove the premise that is being offered SharonDee, although I know your heart is in the right place.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Awareness

A solution for war or crime is bull shit, then I would find the Jehovah witnesses more peacefull in their manner.
When it comes to bringing piece between countries, or in your own country, then is communicating the only solution, you keep calling till you drop dead.

Having a solution for war or crime sounds so corny, it would make the Amish way the only way.

A solution for war and crime denies "evolution" of different "identities" being together.

Awareness, I will not make the same mistake as before because you have your groupies, but you are absolutely and positively wrong in your analysis. Can't we have a decent discussion instead of protecting our positions? I don't know if it is possible in here.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Angakuk;937225]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

They haven't considered that purple people eaters are really creating holograms and beaming that into our minds whenever we see Butterfinger candy bars either. Guess why?

Originally Posted by Angukak

That's because PPEs all work for Hershey's and not Nestle's. They really don't want people thinking about Butterfingers, under any circumstances. What a stunning display of ignorance on your part, Wildernesse.

Oh my goodness, I am flabbergasted that you, Angakuk, are putting this man in the position of Butterfingers and holograms? I don't know where to go from here except to say that this is not what Lessans is doing. He is not offering lies and fairies and things that cannot be taken seriously. It's absolutely crazyyyyyy! Tell me, what can I do to allow him the benfit of the doubt? What???? Is the praying to the god of science enough? I don't think so. I think he will be tarred and feathered regardless of the possibility he could be right. Tell me what to do to get people to at least listen to his observations. Is that asking too much? Maybe it is.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Tell me what to do to get people to at least listen to his observations.

It would help if those "observations" did not try to ignore and supplant all evidence to the contrary while offering nothing but assertions of their certitude by way of replacement.

It's absolutely crazyyyyyy!

Now you're getting it.

[davidm]

Further engagement with peacegirl is pointless. After nearly 90 pages of this rubbish, she can't even master something as basic as the quote function. How can she be expected to master the basics of light and vision?

It should be noted, yet again, that Lessans/peacegirl, in denying that we see in the way that science understands, never actually offer an alternative theory of how we see. All we get is the bare assertion that light enables us to see "what is there." How does it enable us to do this magical thing, peacegirl, if not by reflected light entering the eye and stimulating the optic nerve? Peacegirl/Lessans never say!

And peacegirl, if you want to yammer that you never claimed anything travels faster than light, that's exactly what Lessans claims when he writes that if the sun were turned on NOW, we would see this fact immediatley. What we would NOT see, he bizarrely claims, is our own neighbor standing next to us, until the light from the sun arrived eight minutes later! So apparently this idiot postulates two forms of light: The source light is propagated instantaenously, but there is a different kind of light, the reflected light, that arrives eight minutes later! But hold on a sec! I thought we don't see (according to Lessans) by reflected light anyway.

Just this one passage is such horse manure that it's simply breathtaking. How can any idiot write that light simultaneously arrives instantaenously and also eight minutes later?

peacegirl, you're nuts.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by davidm

Further engagement with peacegirl is pointless.

As has been said many times. Any chance anybody's getting tired of baby-seal clubbing?

[Kael]

It feels more like scab-picking to me. It's always been hard for me to not do that.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, stop being dense. Scientists have dissected eyes, they have examined the structures under microscopes, they have followed the path of the electrical signals in the brain, they have formed hypotheses and tested them and gotten replicable results. The scientific view of vision is not based on mere observation, all the evidence has been corroborated by others.

Lessans did no science with regards to vision.

You used an analogy of observing apples falling straight down and noting that as an "astute observation". It also happens to be the observation everyone else makes, so it is corroborated.

What if you observed apples falling horizontally or straight up and you were the only person to do so? Everyone else observes apples falling down. Scientists formed a hypotheses and tested them and shared results and came up with the theory of gravity which explains this observation well.

According to your way of thinking, because you made a different observation, scientists should test that, because you might be right.

Do you really not see how absurd that is? This is EXACTLY what you are doing with Lessans ideas about sight, trying to get people to think that apples might fall up or sideways despite all the evidence to the contrary. And even more ludicrously calling for scientific tests, even though hundreds or even thousands have already been done.

I have stayed out of this thread for awhile, on account of the baby-seal clubbing like Sock said. But your willful obtuseness is getting ridiculous now. Lessans was wrong about how vision works, period.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Just 15 more pages till we hit a hundred on Teh Stupidest Thrad Evah on Teh Intertubes.

Just think, peacegirl, this thread will be archived and Google-searchable for as long as the Internet exists.

davidm, what do I have to lose? I've already been archived until the end of time, so what's one more thread gonna do?