A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean?

Exactly what it says.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no such thing as real time photography. There is no way to make the physics work for it.

You are not right. If efferent vision is correct (which I believe it is), we would get a real time photo at the exact moment we are seeing a real time object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

God is as imaginary as your "conclusive proof" from the improbable, hoped for, future.

God as a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws --- is real. We can only see the manifestation of this Supreme Intelligence by what we are able to observe in the material world. When we are delivered from evil (or hurt), we will know (we won't need faith) that there is an intelligence behind these laws. This world is not here by accident which means there is design to this world, which also means we do not stand alone. Knowing this gives me comfort, but you believe what you want.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly what it says.

You are not right. If efferent vision is correct (which I believe it is), we would get a real time photo at the exact moment we are seeing a real time object.

At least with efferent vision you can fall back on "not knowing all of how the brain works".

Unfortunately for you, we know exactly how cameras work, and they require light to be in contact with the film or sensor. That means light has to be in the same location as the film or sensor.

If you can't explain how it comes to be located there, you are absolutely wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

God as a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws --- is real. We can only see the manifestation of this Supreme Intelligence by what we are able to observe in the material world. When we are delivered from evil (or hurt), we will know (we won't need faith) that there is an intelligence behind these laws. This world is not here by accident which means there is design to this world, which also means we do not stand alone. Knowing this gives me comfort, but you believe what you want.

Yes, as you obviously believe what you want. Those are faith based assertions you just made.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know that film cannot have a chemical reaction with light unless they are in the same physical location, and I know that light cannot teleport, nor come to be at a location without traveling there. That's straight physical possibilities. I can absolutely make a judgment about your proposition that light suddenly and instantaneously appears on the surface of camera film with no physical mechanism for getting there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are failing to understand efferent vision and why light does not have to reach Earth for an object to be seen if it meets the requirements

I wasn't talking about being seen. I was talking about being photographed. Specifically the newly ignted Sun at noon, when there are NO photons on Earth at all to interact with the camera film or sensor.

I am failing to understand it because it is not physically possible, nor have you offered any kind of physically possible mechanism for this. Therefore it is magical thinking.

Feel free to posit a mechanism that makes any sense at all and doesn't violate the laws of physics...or just keep asserting that it's magic. Whichever you prefer.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

God as a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws --- is real. We can only see the manifestation of this Supreme Intelligence by what we are able to observe in the material world. When we are delivered from evil (or hurt), we will know (we won't need faith) that there is an intelligence behind these laws. This world is not here by accident which means there is design to this world, which also means we do not stand alone. Knowing this gives me comfort, but you believe what you want.

So you are indeed a theist, and have been lying to us every time you've claimed 'God' is only being used as a metaphor for impersonal laws of the universe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

At least with efferent vision you can fall back on "not knowing all of how the brain works".

Unfortunately for you, we know exactly how cameras work, and they require light to be in contact with the film or sensor. That means light has to be in the same location as the film or sensor.

If you can't explain how it comes to be located there, you are absolutely wrong.

I don't believe Lessans was wrong. You keep forgetting that the object, no matter how far away, has to be in view, and it has to be bright enough for an image to show up. If the object did not have to be in view, and all that was required was light for an image to show up on film, that would be a different story. Think of a mirror image, even though it's not a perfect analogy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you are indeed a theist, and have been lying to us every time you've claimed 'God' is only being used as a metaphor for impersonal laws of the universe.

I really don't see the conflict. I do not pray to a God up in heaven, although I know prayer has helped many people overcome unbelievable hardships. I am not religious, even though I like tradition because it brings families together. I also believe that when people are not warring over whose God is the best, and they don't make god out to be a wrathful unforgiving vengeful god, there is wisdom to be found in the Bible and the Torah.

[LadyShea]

You keep forgetting that the object, no matter how far away, has to be in view, and it has to be bright enough for an image to show up.

Hubble Images falsify this claim

If the object did not have to be in view, and all that was required was light for an image to show up on film, that would be a different story

All that is required to create an image using a camera is light and photosensitive material or a photoreceptive digital sensor

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't see the conflict. I do not pray to a God up in heaven, although I know prayer has helped many people overcome unbelievable hardships. I am not religious, even though I like tradition because it brings families together. I also believe that when people are not warring over whose God is the best, and they don't make god out to be a wrathful unforgiving vengeful god, there is wisdom to be found in the Bible and the Torah.

Supreme guiding intelligence =/= impersonal laws of nature.

Impersonal laws of nature = metaphorical 'God'

Supreme guiding intelligence = literal 'God'

What part of this confuses you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Spacemonkey, I'm not getting into this topic again when we haven't finished the other. You think you have shown where his first discovery is unsound. It is not, and I'm not going to leave people with the idea that your logic has negated this knowledge. No way jose.

[LadyShea]

The conflict is you have been saying you mean one thing when you say God, but really mean another.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I'm not getting into this again...

Stop claiming his ideas about vision are correct if you're not willing to discuss it. Stop claiming that you understand how a photograph of the Sun can be taken on Earth before any light has arrived at the camera, when you know full well that you don't understand this at all. Stop lying to us. Stop lying to yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...when you think you have proven his first discovery wrong or unprovable. It's not wrong and I'm not going to leave people with the idea that your logic proved him wrong.

Unfortunately for you, there's fuck all you can do about that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I'm not getting into this topic again when we haven't finished the other. You think you have shown where his first discovery is unsound. It is not, and I'm not going to leave people with the idea that your logic has negated this knowledge. No way jose.

What people are you talking about? Also

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Supreme guiding intelligence =/= impersonal laws of nature.

Impersonal laws of nature = metaphorical 'God'

Supreme guiding intelligence = literal 'God'

What part of this confuses you?

No part. Supreme Intelligence are the laws, but I can metaphorically make these laws more personal. Throughout the book my father used the term God in this way. He even called God a genius.

p. 325 It is true there are differences in behavior patterns and
physiognomies, but certain words are not symbolic except of what we
have projected from our realistic imagination. Therefore, it is
important to recognize that many illnesses are nothing but words, as
strange as this may seem, which Montaigne and other philosophers
perceived. When someone does physical or other harm to another
without justification then we will know that he is mentally disturbed,
but this is virtually impossible in the new world. Until then, God is
forcing us to leave the mind alone. Now tell me; is this Supreme
Being we call God a genius, or isn’t He? God, or the force that
controls our movement in the direction of greater satisfaction, is
forcing us to rely on our body to take care of 98% of all its problems
by making all mankind realize that they don’t know the truth about
a tremendous number of these things, they only thought they knew.

If you are afraid of getting worse and wish to prescribe for yourself
some drug, this will be your business. On the other hand, if you are
more afraid of the drug than leaving your body alone, this is also your
business. But you will have to decide this for yourself since the
doctors who are citizens of the new world will be afraid to make it for
you because the full realization that they might be responsible for
making you worse, not better, and the fact that they will never be
blamed, prevents them from offering excuses for what they can never
justify.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What people are you talking about? Also

My imaginary friends.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Supreme Intelligence are the laws...

No they aren't. You quite specifically spoke of a "Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws". The laws through which the intelligence acts is one thing, and the intelligence employing them is another.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Throughout the book my father used the term God in this way.

Yes, he was just as confused and inconsistent as you are.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My imaginary friends.

Your continued delusion and self-deception regarding your imagined audience is no joke or laughing matter, Peacegirl. It is a problem that you need to take seriously.

[koan]

I've noticed a problem that is insurmountable. I've noticed I'm not the only one who has noticed it.

There is the world according to Garpeacegirl, wherein she dictates what the rest of the world observes, and there is the world according to every other person she's talked to, in which they tell her that the world they observe does not match the one she describes. Garpella insists that the discrepancy is a result of unenlightenment on behalf of the rest of the world and the rest of the world says, while that may be true, Garpella is in a world of one. So whilst the one person may be entirely correct enlight of her own world, it will not have one ounce of effect on the world the other near 7 billion people inhabit. Since a world of one is pretty fucking lonely, Garpella retreats to her imaginary world for momentary breaks, in which her ancestor inhabits and from which, as Gods, they can laugh at the antics of their lowly creations. Yet they are haunted because they need the approval of their own creations for some reason.

Once in awhile, Garpella realises that her imaginary world generates no revenue and, in this modern world, money determines worth. This creates stress and Garpella struggles with how to justify continuing in a world with no measurable assets. Then she remembers that the rest of the world doesn't exist as they believe so worth can be self generated by her and the approval granted by her imaginary friends.

There is no reasoning with God. Garpeacegirl thinks she and God have a special pact.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

At least with efferent vision you can fall back on "not knowing all of how the brain works".

Unfortunately for you, we know exactly how cameras work, and they require light to be in contact with the film or sensor. That means light has to be in the same location as the film or sensor.

If you can't explain how it comes to be located there, you are absolutely wrong.

I have explained it. The object is reflecting light but we are not seeing the image from light. Light is allowing us to see the object in real time which affords this possibility due to the requirements that are met, which you seem not to care about very much. The object must be within the lenses' field of view and it has to be bright enough for an image to show up on film. There is no need to attribute this to magic or teleportation as the only explanation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your continued delusion and self-deception regarding your imagined audience is no joke or laughing matter, Peacegirl. It is a problem that you need to take seriously.

So not only are you a doctor of philosophy, but you have become a doctor psychiatry too?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No they aren't. You quite specifically spoke of a "Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws". The laws through which the intelligence acts is one thing, and the intelligence employing them is another.

Yes, he was just as confused and inconsistent as you are.

That's your opinion, and it is just an opinion. It is okay if I clarify what I'm doing when I personalize God, which I did in the beginning of the book. I don't have to make the laws of our nature as something cold and uncaring because they are not. They are leading us to a world of peace and brotherhood, so if I personalize these laws by calling them God, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it does bring together the heart (feeling) with the head (intellect), and that's refreshing. Maybe I should post this again:

Some people may be offended that the word God is used throughout
the book and conclude that this is a religious work. Perhaps the ‘G’
word even makes them want to shut down and disconnect from what
is being said. This would be unfortunate. As you carefully read the
text you will see that the word God (often referred to as ‘He’) is simply
a symbol pointing to the laws that govern our universe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, as you obviously believe what you want. Those are faith based assertions you just made.

Actually we won't need to have faith anymore when our prayers (our hopes for a better world) are answered and we're delivered from evil. God will have revealed Himself through these miraculous changes that are slowly manifesting themselves in the physical realm.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained it. The object is reflecting light but we are not seeing the image from light. Light is allowing us to see the object in real time which affords this possibility due to the requirements that are met, which you seem not to care about very much. The object must be within the lenses' field of view and it has to be bright enough for an image to show up on film. There is no need to attribute this to magic or teleportation as the only explanation.

No, Peacegirl. You haven't explained it at all. You have absolutely no explanation whatsoever for how light from the sun can be in contact with the film on Earth without having traveled to get there.