A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

OK no need to share,

The first group of 15 are sets of 3 letters A - O
The 2nd group of 15 the first column are the letters A - O, the 2nd column the letters are shifted down one space so the top letter is O, the 3rd column is shifted down 4 spaces so the top letter is M, the first group is AOM. etc.
The last group of 5 is what I had posted previously. AFK, BGL, CHM, DIN, EJO.

Hey, what about my solving the puzzle? What am I chopped liver?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I believe that the puzzle in question may be found here, on page 21.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Well the "puzzle" as described wasn't much to work out, and that his fictional math student and math professor couldn't solve it was pure fiction.

If it's so easy, where's the answer?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that has been provided that proves he is wrong. If there was real substantial proof, I would have no choice but to change my worldview because I also want to live in truth.

This just keeps getting funnier and funnier. Hey Page #95.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that has been provided that proves he is wrong.

davidm neatly summarized it for you

I know, you do not actually read you just spew your lies in a desperate attempt to avoid the obvious: that Lessans was a willfully ignorant crack pot.

For had he removed his head from his fundament and expended a mere modicum of the effort he wasted celebrating himself in his egotistical prose, he may have learned the basics of the topics upon which he pretended understanding.

But he did not.

And you do not.

You and he lose again.

If there was real substantial proof, I would have no choice but to change my worldview because I also want to live in truth.

You will have to extricate your cranium from your rectal vault first.

--J.D.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that light was infinite. We're completely off the beaten track AS USUAL.

Nor did I. I said that, in your kooky little universe, the speed of light would be infinite.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that has been provided that proves he is wrong. If there was real substantial proof, I would have no choice but to change my worldview because I also want to live in truth.

Remind us again of when we see Jupiter's moons eclipsed. Do we see the eclipse as it happens, or several minutes later?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain takes a picture...

Full stop. How does the brain "take a picture"? What does that mean, exactly? And if eyes are not a sense organ, by what method does the brain take a picture of anything?

The brain takes a picture of the relation between the object and the experience that is connected to it.

How does a brain take a picture of a relation? Relations are abstract entities, and so are not visible.

So if someone hears a positive inflection of someone considered beautiful, the picture of that person develops a negative of the relation between the positive inflection and that particular facial characteristic.

Does anyone out there have a clue what the above gibberish is supposed to mean?

Then that value is projected onto that feature everytime that face is seen, because the picture of that relation was taken. But it's only a projected value. It does not circumscribe reality.

Ditto.

No, it means it's YOU that's stubborn as an ox. You won't give up your pet belief for anything, even if it smacks you right in the face with it's veracity. And you say I'm the one messing up our world with all this nonsense?

My pet belief? These "pet beliefs" are because of empirical evidence and experimentation by scientists. Why should we consider them wrong and your Daddy right? They conducted experiments, and he didn't! We know why you think Daddy's "astute observations" trump reality. Because you're insane. You have a cult mentality. You are indifferent to reason, evidence, arguments, data and science itself. Lessan's claims about dogs have been scientifically shown to be false, and you don't care. Incredible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Hey, what about my solving the puzzle? What am I chopped liver?

What! do I have to write it out, is my solution too hard to understand?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And there it is on full display, the phony condescension of the impregnably ignorant cultist. The Lone Ranger, who is a biologist, wrote a long essay to educate your sorry pathetic ass on how we see. Not only did you ignore that thread save for one irrelevant post, you now continue to tell lies about a subject in which The Lone Ranger has given you the source material proving that what you and Lessans say is false. And you've got the temerity to make condescending remarks like this.

He called me a liar, and I could see that he was angry. I told him I wanted to read that post, but it's long. I am trying to understand what is relevant to this discussion and it has to do with how we focus. I am trying to understand whether the ciliary muscles are developed at birth, or not. They are not voluntary muscles that take time to develop. If the brain has to develop in order to use the ciliary muscles to focus, then Lessans is still in the running.

Originally Posted by davidm

There is anger here, but it's anger at willful ignorance, which is so damaging. Your willful ignornace is irrelevant, because Lessans' silly nonsense means nothing and will influence no one. But you represent the kind of willful ignorance that does mean something -- like the willful ignorance of the global warming denialists, and the vast damage that their ignorance will ensure. That's what angers people: willful ignorance and blatant dishonestly, both of which you exemplify in spades.

I am not being willfully ignorant at all, but you are. You haven't even understood why man's will is not free. You keep telling me that it's circular reasoning, which is not true. You want to be right at all costs, and you resent that you might not be. I am not being dishonest, and nothing I'm saying here is damaging. In fact, in the new world people will take the environment very seriously and if there's a chance that they could be contributing to global warming, they would do whatever it took to reverse that trend.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that has been provided that proves he is wrong. If there was real substantial proof, I would have no choice but to change my worldview because I also want to live in truth.

Here ya go.

You're welcome, your royal highness.

[Goliath]

Sorry, I missed this.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quick hint, my first group was - AAA - you continue for 14 more groups the same way. the 16th group was - AOO - simply shift the 2nd rows down one. do the same for the 3rd set of groups and it works out. I took it that if a letter was in a group with another letter once, it couldn't be in a group with that letter again in the next group. I didn't try it but i think it would still work if you shifted the 2nd row by 1, and the 3rd row by 2, [example AON] and then repeted the opperation for the other sets of groups. If this isn't clear enough I'll try again in more detail. This will take care of 30 groups the last 5 are just the last set of letters ex. AFK, BGL, CHM, DIN, EJO. Hope this helps.

Ah yes, gotcha. That interpretation makes more sense than mine. However, the "puzzle", as written, is so horribly worded, that I'm not sure what it's asking for.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think everybody is getting all mixed up when he says that we "project" words onto the screen built by the other senses. That is a misunderstanding. Nothing is built by the other senses. As babies we needed other sense experience in order to focus our eyes to see the external world. That's all it means. Then he shows how the screen of undeniable substance can be attached to words that are projected onto this screen, but are not accurate.

"Everybody is getting all mixed up" because none of it accurately describes what actually happens. Babies do NOT need other senses in order to focus their eyes. Eyesight does NOT work the way he describes it, and the way it would need to work for his ideas about "projecting values" based on words we know to even be coherent, let alone correct. Evidence for this has been provided, while all you have done is rail against us for not accepting the claims as provisionally true until Real Evidence is provided, since in your head any genuine evidence would obviously support these ideas.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is because the premises on which it rests are true.

That is not a requirement of classifying something as 'mathematical,' nor does classifying something as 'mathematical' make it true. Again, consult your local dictionary. Furthermore, I would be very interested in hearing from you the premises "the two-sided equation" rests on and your arguments for why they are true. It would probably be highly entertaining and would go a long way toward helping us reach 100 pages.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Except for one little problem. You haven't given any evidence that peoples' "worldview is incorrect." The second problem is that all the evidence shows that when it comes to vision and light, the worldview that you reject is correct.

The problem here is your worldview. It's wrong.

You keep saying that and yet you keep telling me light is finite, which has nothing to do with Lessans' claims. Five eeks for you and one for good luck (which this thread needs or it's going to die a sad death).

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying that and yet you keep telling me light is finite,

Once again, the speed of light is finite.

Do you see that word above that's in a bigger font (for emphasis)? That word is "speed".

Do you know what that word means?

If so, do you know that the phrases "light" and "speed of light" refer to two different (albeit related) concepts?

[thedoc]

AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ, KKK, LLL, MMM, NNN, OOO,
AOM, BAN, CBO, DCA, EDB, FEC, GFD, HGE, IHF, JIG, KJH, LKI, MLJ, NMK, ONL,
AFK, BGL, CHM, DIN, EJO,

This should prove, without a doubt, Undenialably, Mathematicaly and Scientificaly that Lessans was 100% wrong!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By that response, I can see you're anger is building, so I'm going to leave this post before you get even angrier.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm not angry, per se, I'm offended. (There's a difference.) You're lying, and I find that offensive. And I intend to keep reminding people that you're lying.

I have no idea why you would be offended. I never referred to birds as being part of the experiment. I was talking about dogs only. Then it morphed into something else. Maybe birds can recognize facial features, but I don't think dogs can without using their stronger senses, even though that one anecdotal experiment suggested that they can.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove? First of all, he never talked about birds. But the reality is that birds are less able than dogs to recognize features without some other sense giving them clues. What's with you people to think this is some far out weird observation? I'm in a quandary, not that it matters to any of you.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

More dishonesty on your part. It has been thoroughly documented that at least some bird species can recognize individual humans by their facial features alone. Again, you've even been given citations. Not that you'll read the studies, of course.

Oh, and just to drive home the point, most birds have virtually no sense of smell. They are probably the most sight-dependant animals on the planet. While most birds have superb vision (considerably better than ours, in fact), most of them have little or no sense of smell. Most birds have good senses of hearing, too.

So I'm curious as to how you explain the documented fact that some birds can recognize individual humans when given no sound cues to distinguish them. Do you think the birds are flying up and tasting people?

Maybe they can Lone Ranger. I really need to narrow this discussion to dogs only; not cats, birds, or chimpanzees, in order to stay on track.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not being willfully ignorant at all, but you are. You haven't even understood why man's will is not free. You keep telling me that it's circular reasoning, which is not true. You want to be right at all costs, and you resent that you might not be.

I am not being dishonest ...

You are gob-smackingly dishonest. For instance, you keep repeating your lies about dogs needing non-visual cues to recognize their masters, even when this has been shown emirically to be false. You're a liar.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

anecdotal experiment

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that has been provided that proves he is wrong. If there was real substantial proof, I would have no choice but to change my worldview because I also want to live in truth.

Remind us again of when we see Jupiter's moons eclipsed. Do we see the eclipse as it happens, or several minutes later?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying that and yet you keep telling me light is finite, which has nothing to do with Lessans' claims. Five eeks for you and one for good luck (which this thread needs or it's going to die a sad death).

It has to do with Lessans' claim, you fucking idiot, because he claimed that an observer on Rigel with a sufficiently powerful telescope would see Columbus wading ashore on the New World, as Columbus was doing it as observed on earth. That is his claim. For his claim to be true, the speed of light would have to be infinite, and it's not. Therefore, his claim about Rigel and Columbus is incorrect.

What do you think the term light year means? I asked you this earlier and got no response. You don't know, do you?

Do you know anything about science?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea why you would be offended. I never referred to birds as being part of the experiment. I was talking about dogs only. Then it morphed into something else. Maybe birds can recognize facial features, but I don't think dogs can without using their stronger senses, even though that one anecdotal experiment suggested that they can.

Maybe they can Lone Ranger. I really need to narrow this discussion to dogs only; not cats, birds, or chimpanzees, in order to stay on track.

It doesn't matter if you narrow it down to dogs, he's still wrong! Besides, if he were right, his observation should apply to all species and there would be no need for you to selectively narrow it down; but it doesn't apply to any species.

[thedoc]

After 95 pages of absolute denial of reality, complete with empherical proof, does anyone seriously think they are going to change 'Peacegirls' mind? In reality there is nothing to change.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

After 95 pages of absolute denial of reality, complete with empherical proof, does anyone seriously think they are going to change 'Peacegirls' mind? In reality there is nothing to change.

That is correct, but we are chugging this rolling train wreck toward the magic 100 mark so that we can par-TEEEEEH!

[thedoc]

This has got to be one for the record books, both sides have displayed the most incredable amount of obstinate stubbornness. Peacegirl is incapable of grasping reality, and everyone else can't give up trying to convince her. Only a few more pages, keep it up gang.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by thedoc

After 95 pages of absolute denial of reality, complete with empherical proof, does anyone seriously think they are going to change 'Peacegirls' mind? In reality there is nothing to change.

No, of course not. I'd be as willfully oblivious to reality as she is if I still believed that it was possible to provide any sort of evidence that she'd be willing to accept.

Like I said earlier, I'm in it for education of others, not her. That and the magic 100-page mark.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

anecdotal experiment.