A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know what people would see on other planets? Aren't you speculating? Where's your data?

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound right now?

Are you really so stupid and/or blinded by your absolute faith in Lessans that you can't understand why -- if Lessans' claims were true -- hypothetical observers on extrasolar planets would necessarily get wildly different results than we do here on Earth?

That's difficult to believe, even coming from you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're assuming that because he was my father I would accept anything he said regardless of whether it is true or not, but that's wrong.

It's not an assumption, Peacegirl. It's rather an astute observation. We've seen you do exactly this over and over again. All that matters to you is your faith. You've even reverted to believing things he said which you had previously agreed he was wrong about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not an assumption, Peacegirl. It's rather an astute observation. We've seen you do exactly this over and over again. All that matters to you is your faith. You've even reverted to believing things he said which you had previously agreed he was wrong about.

You can't stand that this man made a discovery and that your logic doesn't prove him wrong. And there is nothing that he said that I agreed he was wrong about in reference to his discoveries.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound right now?

Are you really so stupid and/or blinded by your absolute faith in Lessans that you can't understand why -- if Lessans' claims were true -- hypothetical observers on extrasolar planets would necessarily get wildly different results than we do here on Earth?

That's difficult to believe, even coming from you.

Why do you think he wrote the following? He wanted to make sure you understood that no matter where someone was located, they would see the same thing. You can say I'm stupid all you want; it doesn't change the truth.

p. 116 The explanation as to
why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger
— is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it
would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of
Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone
looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because the
images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light,
therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant
stars.

To paraphrase this another way; if you could sit upon the star
Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very
moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person
sitting right next to me would — which brings us to another very
interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me
because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been
turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we
would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very moment —
although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes
afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star,
the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with
which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light
diminishes before it gets to us.

[The Lone Ranger]

You're not exactly helping your "I'm not stupid" claim with that. (And neither is Lessans.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound right now?

Are you really so stupid and/or blinded by your absolute faith in Lessans that you can't understand why -- if Lessans' claims were true -- hypothetical observers on extrasolar planets would necessarily get wildly different results than we do here on Earth?

That's difficult to believe, even coming from you.

Surely if the Universe had the power and intelligence to decieve us here on Earth it could do so for anyone else in the Universe? Knowledge and learning are limited by our abilities, stupidity knows no bounds.

[The Lone Ranger]

There's that.

I suppose, in order to save Lessans, we could postulate that the gods manipulate every single photon, so as to stagger their arrival time at different planets, and thus create the illusion of delayed-time vision.

The gods must be crazy indeed! (Or incredibly manipulative bastards, anyway.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're not exactly helping your "I'm not stupid" claim with that. (And neither is Lessans.)

Aparently Lessans and Peacegirl are suffering from a kind of intelligence that is totally foreign to anyone else on Earth. Which is why only he and she can understand and agree with everything in the book.

[But]

Originally Posted by koan

Will think about this for a bit. Not quite sure where you're going with it but I'm willing to play along to find out. Have to go to work soon though, so later.

I'm not sure where it's going either, that's why I'm asking. I tried a few times playing peacegirl's "if" game, and it didn't seem to go very far. I've been thinking about what would happen if someone could just see a little bit faster than light, which could mean a tiny bit into the future. Reality might get a bit fuzzy but you would get all sorts of synchronistic events or sort of standing waves through time, I think, I mean speculate. This ties in with the multiverse stuff and the transactional interpretation where there are waves going backwards and forwards in time and all that. At some point you tried the if game, mentioning that if we saw efferently, we would effectively be schizophrenics. I found that an interesting line of speculation. I'm basically trying to connect dots like a conspiracy theorist, but with a finer line, which is tedious.

I thought what if he played against himself, in some sense? It reminded me of a koan about a monk that walks up a mountain during the day, meditates by night, gets up in the morning and descends the mountain the next day. It asks, when (or was it where?) does he meet himself? (I search-engined around but couldn't find it so it may be slightly different). Another funny thing is when I was just reading through these koans, the word "information grenade" popped into my mind out of nowhere. When I think about it, that's an interpretation of what a koan is. There is one with the cup or bucket that has to be emptied, and a koan is a grenade that you throw in there, it takes a while, then it explodes, removing conceptual barriers (or something, don't know what to call it). For what it's worth, this was the one:

Zen Koans: Transcending Duality

The Real Way Is Not Difficult Joshu addressed an assembly of monks: "The Real Way is not difficult;, but it dislikes the Relative. If there is but little speech, it is about the Relative or it is about the Absolute. This old monk is not within the Absolute. Do you value this or not?" A monk said to him, "If you are not within the Absolute, how can you judge its value?" Joshu said, "Neither do I know that." The monk argued, "Your Reverence, if you do not yet know, how is it that you say you are not within the Absolute?" Joshu said, "Your questioning is effective. Finish your worship and leave."

Originally Posted by koan

Yes, I fought with my mind. It is scary and frustrating to be looking at something and have other people tell you it isn't there. It's terrifying at the beginning. I don't know what made the hallucinations stop and worried for a long time that they would come back.

Maybe it was that terror that made it stop. In a different environment, where people reacted differently, maybe they would have made you an oracle or burned you alive or something.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're not exactly helping your "I'm not stupid" claim with that. (And neither is Lessans.)

But if we see in real time, we would see that way no matter where we are, not just Earth. I really can't worry about what people think. If I did, I would have been long gone.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't stand that this man made a discovery and that your logic doesn't prove him wrong.

He didn't make a discovery and the evidence does prove him wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And there is nothing that he said that I agreed he was wrong about in reference to his discoveries.

That's not true. For a long time you agreed that he was probably wrong about being able to see the Sun as soon as it was turned on. You agreed that light first had to be at the eye and that it would take time to get there. You thought we would have to wait eight minutes before we could see anything, but that once light was here we would see the sun and everything else in real time. You agreed that Lessans was probably wrong to have said otherwise. It is only comparatively recently that you've reverted to defending the ludicrous idea that light from the Sun can be at the retina on Earth instantaneously despite having no possible means of getting to be there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He didn't make a discovery and the evidence does prove him wrong.

Actually, he did make a discovery and it will be proven one day. He will be vindicated whether it's in our lifetime, or not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And there is nothing that he said that I agreed he was wrong about in reference to his discoveries.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's not true. For a long time you agreed that he was probably wrong about being able to see the Sun as soon as it was turned on. You agreed that light first had to be at the eye and that it would take time to get there. You thought we would have to wait eight minutes before we could see anything, but that once light was here we would see the sun and everything else in real time. You agreed that Lessans was probably wrong to have said otherwise. It is only comparatively recently that you've reverted to defending the ludicrous idea that light from the Sun can be at the retina on Earth instantaneously despite having no possible means of getting to be there.

No, I knew he was right but I was trying to understand his claim in terms of traveling photons. It actually became more clear to me, and I thank you for that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, he did make a discovery and it will be proven one day. He will be vindicated whether it's in our lifetime, or not.

No he didn't, and no he won't. Save your faith claims for someone who cares.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I knew he was right but I was trying to understand his claim in terms of traveling photons. It actually became more clear to me, and I thank you for that.

No, you were explicitly contradicting him and rejecting his claims about the newly ignited Sun. And how did it become more clear to you? You still have no idea what you are talking about. You are still positing photons at the retina with absolutely no possible way for them to get there.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need to go into detail. I just have to make a distinction between a necessary condition and a cause. Light alone does not cause sight. It is a necessary condition of sight. The afferent model states that light is all that is necessary for us to see. The efferent model states that light is a necessary condition for us to see the real world. Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this. It's never going to be resolved in here.

Necessary conditions are necessary for reasons. You can't explain the reasons, meaning you are making an assertion. Can you explain or support anything at all about efferent sight?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, he did make a discovery and it will be proven one day. He will be vindicated whether it's in our lifetime, or not.

No, I knew he was right but I was trying to understand his claim in terms of traveling photons. It actually became more clear to me, and I thank you for that.

I really don't know what to say here, Peacegirl is so far off the deep end that there is no rational way to respond. It seems that every day she comes up with something that is more ridiculous that the day before even if it is just repeating the same old nonsense.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

p. 116 The explanation as to
why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger
— is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it
would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of
Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone
looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because the
images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light,
therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant
stars.

Thing 1: You should show your work some respect by reformatting it when you quote from the book. It is an eyesore to keep all the hard returns. You'll note that when I've quoted from it I make it look proper, like this:

Originally Posted by Lessans, p116

The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger — is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.

I realize you've said you don't care about etiquette to your reader but you should think of it as etiquette towards your father's work. You make it look bad when you do shit formatting.

Thing 2: The passage from the book says "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time" and it astounds me that a rational person could come to that conclusion. What it proves is that distance affects perspective. It helped artists understand how to draw in three dimensions. It has nothing to do with speed of light or time. Why on earth do you think it means something about time? I'll tell you a test you can set up and I'll tell you one of the variables that will fuck with your results.

Have someone take a light as far away as your eye can see it. Synchronize your watches to the millisecond. Have someone at each end record both the second the light is turned on and when you hit a buzzer the moment you see the light turn on. According to you there should only be a delay matching a prerecorded time it takes you to hit the buzzer.

The variable that will cause you problems is that, on top of the speed of light, the brain does not react to visual stimulus as fast as it reacts to sound. So it will be impossible for you to hit the buzzer the moment the light turns on. How do you explain that the brain reacts slower to sight than to sound when the brain is, according to you, the source of the sight?

[koan]

Originally Posted by But

I'm not sure where it's going either, that's why I'm asking. I tried a few times playing peacegirl's "if" game, and it didn't seem to go very far. I've been thinking about what would happen if someone could just see a little bit faster than light, which could mean a tiny bit into the future. Reality might get a bit fuzzy but you would get all sorts of synchronistic events or sort of standing waves through time, I think, I mean speculate. This ties in with the multiverse stuff and the transactional interpretation where there are waves going backwards and forwards in time and all that. At some point you tried the if game, mentioning that if we saw efferently, we would effectively be schizophrenics. I found that an interesting line of speculation. I'm basically trying to connect dots like a conspiracy theorist, but with a finer line, which is tedious.

I thought what if he played against himself, in some sense? It reminded me of a koan about a monk that walks up a mountain during the day, meditates by night, gets up in the morning and descends the mountain the next day. It asks, when (or was it where?) does he meet himself? (I search-engined around but couldn't find it so it may be slightly different). Another funny thing is when I was just reading through these koans, the word "information grenade" popped into my mind out of nowhere. When I think about it, that's an interpretation of what a koan is. There is one with the cup or bucket that has to be emptied, and a koan is a grenade that you throw in there, it takes a while, then it explodes, removing conceptual barriers (or something, don't know what to call it). For what it's worth, this was the one:

Zen Koans: Transcending Duality

okay. This sounds like a really interesting journey. You said before that I was begging the question with some of my statements and I was unsure how since there wasn't a stated question/premise/conclusion. The only place I could think that was somewhat circular in what I said (just going by memory while I was at work) was "I fought with my mind" because... who am I if not my mind? It's similar to fighting an addiction. My mind says I want to quit smoking and moments later it's like another voice in my mind that puts forth an argument. You can fight with yourself over a lot of things and, for me, it takes the form of a conversation (though both voices sound like mine in my head) There is also the issue of auditory hallucination which is far more common than visual hallucinations. But we need to pick something to beg about before we can dive in. I think I have an idea of where to start but will do so in a new post so we can analyse each part.

I worry about the multiverse theory, btw. Not because I think it is wrong or because I know anything about it at all, which I don't, but because I have a friend who stopped "living his life" because he believed that all possibilities were playing out somewhere else so it didn't matter if he made a decision or took an action. Because of this belief, he had actually chosen to let this life be the one where everything goes to shit. I suggested that he make this one of the lives where he doesn't let down everyone in his life who is counting on him to live. He decided there was some wisdom in that. Thankfully. Anyway. Onward to the fun part.

Originally Posted by But

Maybe it was that terror that made it stop. In a different environment, where people reacted differently, maybe they would have made you an oracle or burned you alive or something.

It wasn't the terror. The terror lessened as I got used to seeing these things. I barely remember the night it stopped and can't be sure the memory survived intact but I do recall making a deal with "someone" that was like God, though I wasn't a religious child. It might have been what others would call a spirit guide, or an imaginary friend... but I made a deal if they would make the visions stop. It ended that night. I have tried numerous times to remember more about what I promised and to whom but really can't be sure.

[koan]

I have a theory of vision that goes thus:

1)There are things we see which originate outside of our... selves. Let us say outside of our brain. I believe this because if you put a group of people in a room they will be able to write a list of what they see in it and their lists will, generally, consist of the same things if the room is simply furnished. This is what we can refer to as "reality" the things a group of people agree their senses informed them of. This can include non visual things like that they heard a bell ringing, they felt a wind, along with they saw a chair... etc. But we'll focus on vision for now. The group (most people) believe the agreed upon "reality" is agreed upon because the things we see are a set of data the eyes receive and that data is sent to our brains and the brain translates the data into an image.

2)There are things we see which originate from with our selves/brains. These images are usually associated with memory but can also be like "daydreaming" where you imagine something happening and you experience a visual image that goes along with it. Usually these images "haze in" and "haze out" and you can tell it comes from your mind. This also includes dreams recalled from sleep. This also includes "classic" hallucinations, defined as one person seeing what the rest of the group does not see. (That last part is debatable if you question the abilities of the group members to perceive some more than others) These images are initiated by the brain. I realized I had the impression that the brain sent the images to my eyes but realized the eyes are not required. I'm not sure if the data is initiated by parts of the brain and sent to another part or if the specific brain areas that translate data just originate all that data directly where it is translated. We do know that if a person hallucinates a face, the part of the brain that deals with facial recognition can be seen as "overactive" at the time of hallucination.

3)We normally can tell the difference between what is coming from outside and what is coming from inside but some people have a problem with their brain that keeps them from being able to separate the two.

So those are the basic premises that I can think of. Any more to add?

[koan]

I promise, this is my last bit then I'm off to bed.

This is the science that backs the assertion that no matter how long it takes for images to reach the eyeball, the brain reacts after. If the brain reacts after, it is not the source. How does Lessans explain this? If he can't, he is wrong. Brain activity is measured using really cool technology that tells when your brain is doing something and, specifically, when it is not.

http://www.measurepolis.fi/alma/ALMA...%20Systems.pdf

Basically, three most important senses in the perspective of the VIS [Vehicular Information Systems] are ranked as follows:

• auditory stimulus only takes 8-10 ms to reach the brain (Kemp et al., 1973)
• visual stimulus takes 20-40 ms (Marshall et al., 1943)
• touch is intermediate, at 155 ms (Robinson, 1934)

Also, for the visual stimulus the area of eye which does the detecting changes the reaction times. As Brebner and Welford (1980) have noted, the central area of eye produces faster reaction times than the edges. Central area of eye is the area where detectors are cones, and in edges the rods are dominant ones

[Vivisectus]

It does not rule his claim out. We can observe a planet in real time, but we still have to account for the planet's movement and its distance in order for probes to accurately reach their destination. It's not surprising to me that we don't aim at the place we see the planet because we have to account for these other factors.

And he didn't have any misconceptions about dog and infant sight.

That is obviously not the point I was making. The point is we aim our probes to hit a planet where we do not see the planet at the moment the probe hits... and yet we do hit it every time. We aim it where we know we won't see it because we take the time delay into account. And guess what? It works. Every time.

As for his ideas about infant sight and dog sight, the scientific consensus is that he was wrong about both of them.

Neither of these things address the truly bizarre things that are required to be happening in order for sight to be instant - so bizarre that the only rational conclusion is to say sight is in fact not instant at all.

[Vivisectus]

p. 116 The explanation as to
why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger
— is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it
would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of
Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone
looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because the
images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light,
therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant
stars.

There he goes again with his odd notions of what is proof. How is perspective supposed to be proof that sight is instant?

And how do we explain the impossible things that are required to be true if sight is instant, with timed neutrinos, and planets speeding up and slowing down depending on how far away from earth they are?

[But]

Originally Posted by koan

okay. This sounds like a really interesting journey. You said before that I was begging the question with some of my statements and I was unsure how since there wasn't a stated question/premise/conclusion.

Okay. I bolded some parts, but didn't mention it.

Originally Posted by koan

I saw non human creatures that were not there.

The question is whether they were there.

The only place I could think that was somewhat circular in what I said (just going by memory while I was at work) was "I fought with my mind" because... who am I if not my mind?

Yes, it's circular. You can remove that circle if you differentiate what was fighting with what. I think the mind has different parts like the "I" does, but they may be different things, depending on terminology; I interpret the "I" to be something like the self in Buddhist thought, I prefer that philosophy to other organized "religion", whatever that means, most of the time, because it makes pretty sharp conceptual distinctions. If I recall correctly, there are lots of different words for different aspects of consciousness, mind, self, etc. there.

It's similar to fighting an addiction. My mind says I want to quit smoking and moments later it's like another voice in my mind that puts forth an argument.

You can fight with yourself over a lot of things and, for me, it takes the form of a conversation (though both voices sound like mine in my head) There is also the issue of auditory hallucination which is far more common than visual hallucinations. But we need to pick something to beg about before we can dive in. I think I have an idea of where to start but will do so in a new post so we can analyse each part.

I know! That's just the thing I've been working on over the last weeks when I realized something about the nature of this kind of internal tics, for lack of a better word, that I had and didn't like. I wanted to suppress them, which would happen with another thought that was designed to smack the other thought square in the face to stop it in its tracks. That reaction was pretty ugly on its surface, but I told myself that it didn't really mean anything. But I noticed that it was pretty specific. It went something like this:

1. from somewhere came some thought that made me uncomfortable, but it came from the sub- or superconscious, I couldn't tell, and I couldn't pin down what exactly it was, only that it arose in reaction to another thought immediately before it.

2. as a reaction, some more conscious part of me, which didn't like the uncomfortable thought and didn't even care to know what exactly that was, yelled at everyone. That went something like "I hate you all". It didn't like to single out anyone in particular, so it stayed very non-specific in the beginning. That meant I couldn't really identify who the target was.

3. as a reaction to the content of thought 2, I blocked it before the sentence was finished, because I thought, that's not who I am. I don't have thoughts like that. That obviously makes no sense, so I had to try something different. I tried to observe where it was coming from (useless, it was all "my mind", what can you do?), what exactly it said and what it was a reaction to.

Then I came to the preliminary conclusion that it was a communication problem between the different parts of me. Thought 1 was just a thought about something, which could be anything. That got translated and sent to the different parts of me. The more primitive part, for which the reptile is a good metaphor, just got an image. It associated this image with the other stuff it thought it knew. It sent out its reaction, which tends to be relatively primitive, something like "I'm afraid of that"/"I'm terrified of that", "I like that"/"I love that", "this is sort of mine"/"this is MINE", "X would fit nicely in my routine right now", "Time for the ritual involving X!!". This got translated for the "higher" or outer part, which put it into grammatical form and looked for something to attach it to. I didn't want to find out about all of that, because I only noticed it when it was negative, which is really a self-referential thing, because the overtone was "I'm afraid of that, so I'm going to get away from it!" .

I worry about the multiverse theory, btw. Not because I think it is wrong or because I know anything about it at all, which I don't, but because I have a friend who stopped "living his life" because he believed that all possibilities were playing out somewhere else so it didn't matter if he made a decision or took an action. Because of this belief, he had actually chosen to let this life be the one where everything goes to shit. I suggested that he make this one of the lives where he doesn't let down everyone in his life who is counting on him to live. He decided there was some wisdom in that. Thankfully.

The daughter of Hugh Everett III, who discovered the many-worlds interpretation, committed suicide and left a note that she was going to meet up with Dad in another parallel universe. She was also schizophrenic, like many in the family, if I recall correctly. I think that makes sense, but it may be a result of this Many-worlds-ism, which I sort of let go last night. I watched a talk by a historian who is a biographer of Everett, who went into a lot of detail about his life. It was eye-opening. He said that Everett was a solipsist in some way. He said stuff to people like if he wanted them to disappear out of reality he would simply "unthink" them, all in good fun.

He was a really interesting person, lots of synchronicity there. Wikipedia says that for example his niece was a flight attendant on the plane that flew into the Pentagon, right into the side where he used to work. LOL, it must be a conspiracy!

One interesting part was when Peter Byrne, his biographer, mentioned that when his ideas were rejected by Niels Bohr which he visitied when he was 24 years old, he went into a hotel and got drunk with beer. There he developed a method for mathematical optimization involving generalized Lagrange multipliers (the Everett algorithm) . Until now I never tried to understand that method because I thought he really thought his multiverse theory was more important.

But Byrne said something like "if you don't think this theory (the one of these multipliers) is important in your life, this is the theory that decides, if global nuclear war breaks out, which cities are defended by nuclear missiles and which are targeted, who lives and who dies." That was pretty cool. I think that's what control of the world looks like, and he was the one person that would have least wanted to achieve that. I now think that the solipsist interpretation (Copenhagen) is just as true or false as the other interpretations, and maybe in the gibberish that part of it represents lies a lot of insight. LOL. I can't believe I wrote that.

Anyway. Onward to the fun part.

Indeed. That is true on so many levels, I realized this morning.

Originally Posted by koan

It wasn't the terror. The terror lessened as I got used to seeing these things. I barely remember the night it stopped and can't be sure the memory survived intact but I do recall making a deal with "someone" that was like God, though I wasn't a religious child. It might have been what others would call a spirit guide, or an imaginary friend... but I made a deal if they would make the visions stop. It ended that night. I have tried numerous times to remember more about what I promised and to whom but really can't be sure.

Do try to find out. You will be amazed.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by koan

So those are the basic premises that I can think of. Any more to add?

Our memory is fallible, but we rely on it in constructing and describing our reality.

In your example, when the people are looking around the room they can't look at everything at once - they're relying on their short term memory to remember what is behind them when they turn around to look the other way. Most people's short term memory is pretty good, so this probably only results in small errors.

Much worse is our longer term memory, so when we are remembering the room to describe it we're likely to make much more significant errors. Our memories aren't recorded as visual images or sound recordings - they're more like concepts - but when we try to remember our brain attempts to convert these concepts back into virtual visual and audio images for us to interpret. For example, if in the room we were casually talking about vases or looking at a painting of a vase then when we remember and describe the room we may say that it contained a vase. It depends on the intensity of the memory: a heated argument about vases will be more likely be remembered as an argument, complete with the identity of the person you were arguing with.

[Dragar]

I think that makes sense, but it may be a result of this Many-worlds-ism, which I sort of let go last night.

You've heard my objections to Many Worlds (or at least the popular version) already. I'm curious as to what brought about the change? And what your new interpretation of quantum mechanics is? (Or are you doing it properly, and interpreting classical mechanics instead? )

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No he didn't, and no he won't. Save your faith claims for someone who cares.

He actually did make a discovery Spacemonkey, but you can believe whatever you want. I don't want or care to psychoanalyze you, but you're full of sour grapes for reasons that go beyond this discussion. Regardless, your denouncement of this discovery will not change the coming of the Golden Age which was predicted many centuries ago.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I knew he was right but I was trying to understand his claim in terms of traveling photons. It actually became more clear to me, and I thank you for that.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you were explicitly contradicting him and rejecting his claims about the newly ignited Sun. And how did it become more clear to you? You still have no idea what you are talking about. You are still positing photons at the retina with absolutely no possible way for them to get there.

It became clear to me because I realized that you can't analyze this claim in terms of afferent vision, which you have been doing all along, and you got me to do it for a time until I realized what was going on. You have no understanding of efferent vision whatsoever, which is why you think you have the right to treat me with such disrespect. It's really a total sham.