A revolution in thought - Page 79

erimir · #**1951** 04-16-2011, 10:55 PM

peacegirl, you are either an idiot or a liar. Go away.

SharonDee · #**1952** 04-16-2011, 11:15 PM

Or the Savior! Don't forget the third leg of the trilemma.

Doctor X · #**1953** 04-16-2011, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would be seeing the sun explode as it happens, not before and not after.

Which, as in the case of an eclipse, does not happen.

So you sort of sink yourself right there. :wave:

--J.D.

peacegirl · #**1954** 04-16-2011, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I do not think I am the one who has a problem misinterpreting what is being said. On the other hand, this thread is full of people stating that you are misinterpreting what people are saying or that you do not understand what other people are saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Saying so doesn't make it so.

No it doesn't, but there is no reason not to believe me when I say I'm trying. Anyway, this is not about them, it's about misinterpreting what YOU said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that people are trying to convince me that there is no possibility that an alternate claim regarding the eyes could be correct. I get that, but I'm still not convinced. Why can't you wait until further testing is completed? I feel like I'm a broken record.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

We are convinced that the current state of knowledge is complete to a point that the alternative you present is unworkable. You have not provided any reason that the current state of knowledge has gaps, or that your alternative better explains what we already know.

If that is true, then what is the point of this conversation? Is it to convert me to their way of thinking? Is it to observe someone who is so faith driven that she can't see the truth even if it was staring at her in the face? What is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a logical fallacy because I am not a dishonest person. I might have answered incorrectly, or misunderstood you, but that does not mean I'm dishonest, which means I am being intentionally deceitful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

No. I am not saying that you are dishonest, therefore you are not presenting anything of value either. So I don't think it is an ad hominem attack in the way you describe. You are switching what you are claiming my ad hominem attack to be, in any event.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You told me I am a liar and I'm dishonest on more than one occasion. Don't tell me now that you didn't say this. On top of it you are on the verge of calling me dumb, an idiot, and stupid. That's not the way to have a discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Yes, I have said you were lying and being dishonest. I have not said [you are lying and dishonest, therefore you are not presenting anything of value]. What is inside the brackets is an entire idea, which is relevant to the topic of whether I am using an ad hom attack.

Whether it's an ad hom attack or not, I don't really care. Calling me a liar and dishonest for whatever reason is not true because that's not who I am. I might not be clear in explaining something, but I am not being deceitful intentionally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

If I did express the idea within the brackets, it might be an ad hom attack. You said I was being dishonest, which I disputed. I thought you might be implying that I was using an ad hom attack (otherwise the only way I was being dishonest is if I agree with your idea, but don't want other people to know this and therefore call you names--this is not the case), but I do not believe I am using an ad hom either. You have not shown that I am either dishonest or using an ad hom attack.

Fine, so we're both guilty of accusing each other of being dishonest which is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I think it has been discussed at length how you are not presenting anything of value, and our conclusions are coming down to the ideas that you are ignorant/stupid/dishonest. I don't really think that this is an ad hom either, because we aren't using that conclusion to negate your presentation of this idea. Instead, your presentation of the idea has supported the idea that you have these characteristics. It seems like the cart is before the horse, if you want to call that an ad hom attack.

Calling me ignorant of how the scientific process works is one thing; calling me stupid and dishonest is quite another. That is a personal attack and and has no place in a serious discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic doesn't follow that my presentation supports the idea that I have these characteristics. You know these names are hurtful, therefore your conscience must have a justification to call me these names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Saying so doesn't make it so.

Saying so doesn't make it so, but if you understood the reasons why conscience needs a justification, you would see that it is so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegir

lI clarified how Lessans was using the word scientific way back in this thread. I know what the scientific method is. I know what empirical data is. At this point it's all semantics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Saying so doesn't make it so.

When I have already defined what I mean by a term, and I have also explained to you that I know how others define these terms --- and you still keep bringing up that I don't know what the scientific method is --- makes me wonder what your purpose is in repeating this over and over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean by "higher order thinking?" It sounds like you are accusing me of being someone who can't apply what I've learned to new situations?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

When I say higher order thinking, I mean the thinking skills that take information we know and use it in new ways. Such as taking a principle and applying it to new scenarios or situations, even those not contemplated when the principle was developed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

You do not appear to be able to do this with Lessan's ideas. Many people have asked you do do this, when they say things like "If Lessans' ideas are correct, how do you explain [x]?" You have misunderstood other people's attempts to imagine how the world would work under Lessans' ideas or when they have used analogies. You do not appear to understand why people are bringing up examples of ways that we know the world works that seem to conflict with Lessans' ideas. Maybe you are just unwilling to think about his ideas in new ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't remember anyone giving me a question such as: "If Lessans' ideas are correct, how do you explain [x]?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

In just the last few posts, specious_reasons has asked how you think a camera works according to Lessans' ideas about light. Every example provided that shows how the current understanding of sight and light has generally been matched with an invitation for you to show how it would work if Lessans' ideas are true.

I must have missed it. I don't' think there is a conflict with how a camera works. This is from ehow.

The Film

Old cameras work using a special thin strip of film. The film is treated with a special light sensitive chemical that works by causing a chemical change when sunlight strikes the film. The more light exposed to the film, the more exposed the film will become. Too much light can overexpose the film, completely ruining the photo.

The Lens

The lens controls how much light focuses on the film. The lens uses a field of focus to determine how large the image will be on the film, as well as how clear the image will be when developed.

The Shutter

Though the lens focuses the light, it's the shutter that is the actual light control. By using the shutter you can choose a long or short exposure (to light) to control the finished image on the film.

The Iris

The iris works by further reducing the exposure light to the film. The aperture located inside the iris also changes the field of focus to allow objects both close to the camera and far away from the camera to stay clear and sharp. Without the iris parts of the image would remain blurry.

Film Developing

One of the fundamental differences between old film cameras and new digital cameras is the developing process. With digital cameras there is no film. This removes many of the problems associated with exposing the film. In film cameras, the film is developed using chemicals called couplers. As each type of coupler is exposed to the film it creates a different color. The exposure to the couplers also seals the film so that it is no longer sensitive to light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The entire book is to show how this knowledge extends into every area of human relation (I would call that 'new situations', wouldn't you?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Well, saying so doesn't make it so. It may purport to do so, but it does not necessarily provide any reasons why. And even if it did, this would not support YOU having higher order thinking skills. In order for YOU to have higher order thinking skills, you would need to apply what you have learned to new situations and examples. You have not done so.

Okay, if it makes you happy, I don't have higher order thinking skills. I think it's completely irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh, so now you are putting me on a level of a first grader?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying very hard to make me look like I am not a capable thinker (or capable of higher order thinking, as you put it), so my presentation is unsupportable. That comment is unsupportable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

My point in using the first grader as an example was to show that even a person not capable of those skills WOULD be able to present valuable information. Therefore, I was not saying that the book's information was unsupportable because of your characteristics and your claim that I was making an ad hom attack was not supported.

Fine, so I'm incapable of higher order thinking, but I can present valuable information, and therefore you are not making an ad hom attack. Can we move on now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Instead, you concluded nearly the exact opposite of what I wrote. You were unable to understand my example, which is evidence that you may not have strong higher order thinking skills. In other words, the idea [peacegirl does not have higher order thinking skills] is supported by your interpretation (or lack thereof) of my example and you are wrong.

I already said fine. You won wildernesse. I agree that I don't have higher order thinking skills. Since this doesn't mean that I can't present something valuable, then everyone can still take seriously what I am presenting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can feel your frustration but I will say, once again, that I can't move forward unless people can go along [at least temporarily] as if his premises are correct. I have bent over backwards to help people grasp these principles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Other people in this thread, such as LadyShea, have been able to agree to certain of the principles you wish to discuss. You still have not been able to make progress.

Other than Angakuk asking me to move forward, no one seems to care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Others have provided examples of how you could move forward with your presentation, but have chosen not to. Instead, you blame us for your inability.

I am not blaming you for anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that. I didn't come on this thread to be put down and mocked. I came to share something whether people believe it's true, or not. If they want to look at me as a nut case, I really don't care at this point, but I do care when people mock Lessans or name call. Those people know who they are, and they just will be ignored for the rest of the time I'm here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

You are able to share the information and no one is stopping you from doing that. Your past behavior has also not shown that you will ignore anyone. You haven't ignored me and you are still responding to davidm after making similar threats.

Davidm is definitely testing my patience. The only reason I keep talking to him is because in between his vitriol he asks some decent questions. I am trying not to ignore people but if it comes to that, I will, although this thread can't go on for much longer. There's nothing left to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told everyone I'm not sure about his claim that we would see the sun instantly as it explodes, and he would have admitted if he was wrong. It all depends on whether we can see a distant object (because of the light being reflected off of that object), without that same light having to impinge on the optic nerve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I would say that it depends on whether Lessans understood enough about light and sight to know whether he was wrong. If he was not educated enough to understand these topics, he might never have realized that he was wrong and had no opportunity to admit that. You do not seem to consider that possibility. He might have been wrong and not known it, which is why he did not admit to being wrong. Don't you think that is possible?

I really don't know. All I know is that he was not the kind of person to make such a claim unless he was pretty darn sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've stated this already. It was more his understanding of how the brain uses words than it was his study of light that allowed him to come to these conclusions. It was coming in the back door, so to speak. It was an indirect finding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

This is almost entirely nonresponsive to what I wrote, which is pretty funny. Do you believe that it is possible for Lessans to have not realized he was wrong? That is a yes or no question!

No.

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

peacegirl · #**1955** 04-16-2011, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Taken from his essay posted on the equally wonderful QuackWatch:

Quote:

Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.

The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.

One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion—a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment. . . .

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

. . . Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. . . . Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.

There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth. . . .

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

Linkypoo

"Let us review the catechism!" How does peacegirl's "discovery" fair with the Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science [Available on Blue Ray!--Ed.]

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. CHECK!

Hence self-published books, spaming fora with threads lauding the "discovery." Nothing published in peer-reviewed literature.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. CHECK!

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. CHECK!

Cannot find evidence of that "efferent" optic nerve!

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. Not Applicable--she presented NO evidence.

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. She misses this one since it is "new"

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. CHECK!

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. CHECK! CHECK! CHECK!

She has to propose new laws of basic physics, change neuroanatomy and physiology, change behavior, et cetera.

--J.D.

Oh my god, this is so sad that it's funny!!! :yup:

peacegirl · #**1956** 04-16-2011, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

As I pointed out to Peacegirl many pages ago, if Lessan's claims were correct, no one could participate on a message board. How could anyone see what anyone else is writing?

They see because of the light that is being reflected; it's just that the light is not carrying the information to the brain. The brain is seeing the object because of light's presence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

For Lessans' claim seems to be that the other four senses build up a picture in the mind, which then is "projected" (somehow!) on a "screen" (which unfortunately doesn't exist.)

No, you don't have it right. He said as a baby the other senses stimulate the brain to focus on what it is experiencing. But once the eyes are focussed, they don't get unfocussed. We are seeing the world directly; that's what he means by a screen of undeniable substance upon which we are able to project words that don't symbolize anything real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So, Peacegirl, how is the picture of the other posts people write, as well as the graphical interface of the message board, being built in the mind, if light is carrying no information? If you require the other senses to carry the information to build the "picture" that is then "projected," you are out of luck. You can't hear this message board. You can't taste it. You can't feel it. You can't smell it. So, ergo, if Lessans were right, the whole Intertubes wouldn't work! No one could see (project!) a damned thing.

But, as it happens, Lessans is wrong, and the way that eyes and brains see has been explained to you. Q.E.D.

That's what he meant when he said light is a condition of sight. Why can't you get that into your brain that he never said we didn't need light to see??? I need a time out.

wildernesse · #**1957** 04-17-2011, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I do not think I am the one who has a problem misinterpreting what is being said. On the other hand, this thread is full of people stating that you are misinterpreting what people are saying or that you do not understand what other people are saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Saying so doesn't make it so.

No it doesn't, but there is no reason not to believe me when I say I'm trying. Anyway, this is not about them, it's about misinterpreting what YOU said.

There are nearly 80 pages of reasons why someone shouldn't believe you when you say you are trying. You said you were trying to use the quote function, but there's not a lot of evidence of a sustained attempt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

We are convinced that the current state of knowledge is complete to a point that the alternative you present is unworkable. You have not provided any reason that the current state of knowledge has gaps, or that your alternative better explains what we already know.

If that is true, then what is the point of this conversation? Is it to convert me to their way of thinking? Is it to observe someone who is so faith driven that she can't see the truth even if it was staring at her in the face? What is it?

Well, some people seem to be generally curious as to how Lessans' alternatives would work, seeing as how they are in conflict with what we already know about light and sight. Others have said that they are interested in you and how you react to this conflict. I think it is clear that my goal in this conversation is to get this thread to 100 pages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether it's an ad hom attack or not, I don't really care. Calling me a liar and dishonest for whatever reason is not true because that's not who I am. I might not be clear in explaining something, but I am not being deceitful intentionally.

Saying so doesn't make it so. If you aren't being intentionally dishonest, I guess that leaves you with some kind of reading comprehension problem. Otherwise, the way you respond to people just doesn't make any sense at all. Of course, you could be a really, really, really good troll, but I don't think that is the simplest explanation. So, I admit I could be wrong about you being stupid, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fine, so we're both guilty of accusing each other of being dishonest which is wrong.

Apparently so. Strangely, I don't feel any guilt about it. What does that say about my conscience?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Calling me ignorant of how the scientific process works is one thing; calling me stupid and dishonest is quite another. That is a personal attack and and has no place in a serious discussion.

Stating that someone is being dishonest is not really a personal attack when a person is being dishonest. That is being descriptive. You called me dishonest without showing any reason why you did that. I called you dishonest because you keep attributing ideas to me/putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Saying so doesn't make it so, but if you understood the reasons why conscience needs a justification, you would see that it is so.

What reasons? Can you make a list of the reasons that support the idea [conscience needs a justification]?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I must have missed it. I don't' think there is a conflict with how a camera works. This is from ehow.

The Film

Old cameras work using a special thin strip of film. The film is treated with a special light sensitive chemical that works by causing a chemical change when sunlight strikes the film. The more light exposed to the film, the more exposed the film will become. Too much light can overexpose the film, completely ruining the photo.

The Lens

The lens controls how much light focuses on the film. The lens uses a field of focus to determine how large the image will be on the film, as well as how clear the image will be when developed.

The Shutter

Though the lens focuses the light, it's the shutter that is the actual light control. By using the shutter you can choose a long or short exposure (to light) to control the finished image on the film.

The Iris

The iris works by further reducing the exposure light to the film. The aperture located inside the iris also changes the field of focus to allow objects both close to the camera and far away from the camera to stay clear and sharp. Without the iris parts of the image would remain blurry.

Film Developing

One of the fundamental differences between old film cameras and new digital cameras is the developing process. With digital cameras there is no film. This removes many of the problems associated with exposing the film. In film cameras, the film is developed using chemicals called couplers. As each type of coupler is exposed to the film it creates a different color. The exposure to the couplers also seals the film so that it is no longer sensitive to light.

I will let specious_reasons deal with this part, as it is really addressed to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, if it makes you happy, I don't have higher order thinking skills. I think it's completely irrelevant.

Yes, it is irrelevant. It doesn't make me happy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fine, so I'm incapable of higher order thinking, but I can present valuable information, and therefore you are not making an ad hom attack. Can we move on now?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said fine. You won wildernesse. I agree that I don't have higher order thinking skills. Since this doesn't mean that I can't present something valuable, then everyone can still take seriously what I am presenting.

Yes, but it does not mean that they will.

I'm not trying to win anything, but when your responses seem to misconstrue everything that I say it is frustrating. I would rather you understood what I wrote the first time around, so if what I say makes you mad or flustered, why don't you just slow down and wait until you have had a chance to calm down before you respond?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Other than Angakuk asking me to move forward, no one seems to care.

You are right. No one in this thread does truly care about this idea besides you. Do you think that you might be mistaken about whether or not the universe is ready, based on the reactions you have had so far?

In any event, you could still move forward and tell us about the idea without requiring us to understand it. Or you could write an article and post it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Davidm is definitely testing my patience. The only reason I keep talking to him is because in between his vitriol he asks some decent questions. I am trying not to ignore people but if it comes to that, I will, although this thread can't go on for much longer. There's nothing left to say.

I am fully committed to this thread getting to 100 pages. Here's some advice: stop telling people what you don't like about their posting. It only makes them keep doing it and you look like a whiner. Just ignore what you don't like, and comment on what you feel is important to be addressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

This is almost entirely nonresponsive to what I wrote, which is pretty funny. Do you believe that it is possible for Lessans to have not realized he was wrong? That is a yes or no question!

No.

Why not? Even people who are not known to make claims unless they are very sure can be mistaken. People who make mistakes aren't bad people, and it doesn't mean that all of his idea was wrong either.

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

Doctor X · #**1958** 04-17-2011, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, this is so sad that it's funny!!! :yup:

You are indeed, sad, but not at all funny.

Willful ignorance is never funny. :sadno:

--J.D.

thedoc · #**1959** 04-17-2011, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

there is no reason not to believe me when I say I'm trying.

Now this is rich, peacegirl says there is 'no reason not to believe her' and yet from the begining when some-one said that they had read the book but disagreed with it, she has consistantly said she did not believe them. She has repetedly called almost everyone on this thread a lier. I would submit that only a lier would accuse everyone else of lying, trying to redirect attentoin from their own actions.

Peacegirls biggest mistake is to try to present this book and it's ideas on a forum of critical thinkers who can see thru the text of the book and find the falacies. She would have been much better off if she had done a better job of picking the appropriate forum to post on. I'm sure there are forums where the proponents of UFO's, bigfoot, scientology, creationism, and the like. She would probably have sold a lot of books, made a lot of money, and could have started her own little commune with it's own little 'Golden age'.

specious_reasons · #**1960** 04-17-2011, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I must have missed it. I don't' think there is a conflict with how a camera works. This is from ehow.

The Film

Old cameras work using a special thin strip of film. The film is treated with a special light sensitive chemical that works by causing a chemical change when sunlight strikes the film. The more light exposed to the film, the more exposed the film will become. Too much light can overexpose the film, completely ruining the photo.

The Lens

The lens controls how much light focuses on the film. The lens uses a field of focus to determine how large the image will be on the film, as well as how clear the image will be when developed.

The Shutter

Though the lens focuses the light, it's the shutter that is the actual light control. By using the shutter you can choose a long or short exposure (to light) to control the finished image on the film.

The Iris

The iris works by further reducing the exposure light to the film. The aperture located inside the iris also changes the field of focus to allow objects both close to the camera and far away from the camera to stay clear and sharp. Without the iris parts of the image would remain blurry.

Film Developing

One of the fundamental differences between old film cameras and new digital cameras is the developing process. With digital cameras there is no film. This removes many of the problems associated with exposing the film. In film cameras, the film is developed using chemicals called couplers. As each type of coupler is exposed to the film it creates a different color. The exposure to the couplers also seals the film so that it is no longer sensitive to light.

I will let specious_reasons deal with this part, as it is really addressed to him.

Thanks wildernesse. :shakefist:

It's a nice simple description of a camera, and I don't disagree with it at all. The problem is, there's no information in the light, so what is striking the film (or the sensor) to produce an image? How is this consistent with Lessans' observations, you never say....

davidm · #**1961** 04-17-2011, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They see because of the light that is being reflected; it's just that the light is not carrying the information to the brain. The brain is seeing the object because of light's presence.

BINGO!

Now, think. Lessans said that if the sun were turned on right now, we would see it immediately, but that we would see the person next to us eight minutes later.

Realize how stupid that is. Once you see the source it means the light has arrived to be reflected. As soon as the light from the source is entering your eyes, so will light be entering your eyes that is reflected off your neighbor. You will the sun eight minutes after it is turned on, and your neighbor, due to the reflected light that has just arrived, at teh same time!

peacegirl · #**1962** 04-17-2011, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erimir

peacegirl, you are either an idiot or a liar. Go away.

No erimir, I'm not going to go away unless I choose, in the direction of greater satisfaction, to leave. Your wish that I go away may influence me to do just that, but it will be part of other considerations before I actually leave. Trust me, if everyone in here says go away, I will go away.

peacegirl · #**1963** 04-17-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by erimir

What is the difference between the image of his facial features and the image of his clothing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A dog could identify a shape of something, but to recognize a combination of shapes (eyes, noses, mouths) that would distinguish his owner from someone else is a different story.

You are still failing to explain why recognizing one combination of shapes (eyes, nose, mouth) would demonstrate that the eyes are a sense organ, but recognizing another combination of shapes (hat, moustache, sweater) would not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erimir

There is no reason. They are both distinguishing by sight.

Quote:

I'm not clinging to anything; I just want the experiment to be reliable and not have other interferences that could bring in inaccurate results. Isn't that what empirical testing is all about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by erimir

No, you're moving the goalposts so you don't have to admit you were wrong.

First you claimed that a dog couldn't identify its master by sight. Now you're claiming that a dog couldn't recognize its master by sight by facial features alone, and for some unknown reason claiming that only the latter would demonstrate that the eyes were a sense organ.

You don't want the test of sight to be have outside interferences like... other things that rely on sight? That's like giving a math test and saying the results are invalid because there was a question on the test that had a negative answer, so it can't truly compare the mathematical ability between the test-takers.

I'm not invalidating anything to make the proof unsupportable. Please don't put me in the cateogry of a sleight of hand presentation, or a technical mistake. There is no sleight of hand presentation here. Whether you see this or not is an altogether different story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erimir

You were proven wrong and now you're squirming around pathetically in hopes that you can avoid admitting it.

If you can't admit that you were wrong on this, when the evidence IS PLAINLY IN FRONT OF YOU, ON VIDEO, then we all know you're a disingenuous little evangelist who doesn't give a shit about really finding the truth.

Not true. There are discrepencies, obviously, or I wouldn't be giving a refutation. If you don't have the patience to understand what those discrepencies are, you will be angry like you are right now, and we won't be able to talk intelligently.

Quote:

I am trying to verify whether the image of his master is traveling as part of the light. If the dog cannot recognize the image of his master, then we have to question whether he is interpreting the image in his brain. It should be a slam dunk for him to be able to do this is the eyes are a sense organ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erimir

The image of a hat and moustache, and the images that would allow a dog to see a difference in gait would also be traveling by light.

Yes it would, but the slam dunk that refutes this is that everything should be traveling by light and recognized from the light, not just gait or an outline of a moustache. This experiment is not airtight in any sense of the word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erimir

There is no distinction between those images, they all involve light traveling to the eyes and being sensed by the eyes.

That is your conclusion at this point. Maybe it will change in time. I don't know. I am not invested in whether you understand the subtle differences or not, especially with your caustic attitude. For sure you won't get anything from this because of your determination to prove Lessans wrong. Don't you see this as a problem erimir?

Quote:

It's either true or not. I am not trying to persuade anyone to believe something that isn't proven, especially something as absurd sounding as the eyes not being a sense organ. But please don't rule it out just because it sounds absurd.

It is true. It has been shown to be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erimir

I'm not ruling it out because it sounds absurd, I'm ruling it out because it is wrong and all the evidence shows that it is wrong. You have been presented with evidence, and you are trying to weasel your way out of admitting that you're wrong with this nonsense.

If that's the way you feel, why be here unless it's for entertainment. I am not weaseling my way out of anything. I am trying to isolate the variables which you have failed to do. :yup:

peacegirl · #**1964** 04-17-2011, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, this is so sad that it's funny!!! :yup:

You are indeed, sad, but not at all funny.

Willful ignorance is never funny. :sadno:

--J.D.

I think your post was funny, and sad too (if you actually believe Lessans fit into that category; I really hope you were making a spoof). If not, your ignorance Doctor X is preventing you from asking the right questions. Ignorance is not funny, that is true, but ignorance without knowing you are ignorant is even more upsetting. :yup:

peacegirl · #**1965** 04-17-2011, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They see because of the light that is being reflected; it's just that the light is not carrying the information to the brain. The brain is seeing the object because of light's presence.

BINGO!

Now, think. Lessans said that if the sun were turned on right now, we would see it immediately, but that we would see the person next to us eight minutes later.

Realize how stupid that is. Once you see the source it means the light has arrived to be reflected. As soon as the light from the source is entering your eyes, so will light be entering your eyes that is reflected off your neighbor. You will the sun eight minutes after it is turned on, and your neighbor, due to the reflected light that has just arrived, at teh same time!

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. First and foremost, his observation as to whether the eyes are a sense organ is paramount before we investigate anything else. So why harp on this one afterthought which won't be able to tell us anything unless we first know for sure whether his claim about the eyes was right or wrong? Is it that you are trying to make him wrong before the real proof can tell us the truth, just so you can be right? :glare:

Awareness · #**1966** 04-17-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hi everyone,

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 hope this brings interest because it is absolutely and positively a breakthrough that has yet to be uncovered.

" Uh buoy "..............

One good thing is that you are Peacegirl.

I'll make it short peace girl; but saying this "making war and crime an impossibility" shows that you must be really young.

I am not waiting for the age where all of us are smiling at each other like idiots. And then to be also drugged with some kind of wonder-pill??!! That is oh so cruel.
And of course not being man of course.

Because being "man" I want to cherish oh so dearly.

But, hold the drug for safe keeping and " dart " Gaddafi or Kim Yung Il for example with it.

" Oww " !! What the f..k?????

peacegirl · #**1967** 04-17-2011, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would be seeing the sun explode as it happens, not before and not after.

Which, as in the case of an eclipse, does not happen.

So you sort of sink yourself right there. :wave:

--J.D.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

peacegirl · #**1968** 04-17-2011, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But what if the light is not giving any information about the object it is being reflected off of, but instead is giving us the ability to use the brain and the eyes in order to see said object? What if? Can't you open your mind just a little before it closes shut again?

The only problem is that light does give information about the object is being reflected off of. This is pretty well established, and more than one technology relies on this very fact. I mean, how do you think a camera works?

Stop pretending that we're the ones being closed minded, it's not open-minded to reject reality.

Light is a necessary condition. That's how we are able to see what's out there in the real world. But the object seen because of the light is not carried in the light away from the object which the light is reflecting off of. A camera uses light to take a picture of an object or event. It does not take a picture of the light without the object.

peacegirl · #**1969** 04-17-2011, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's interesting how most observations can be correct but still get the wrong result.

What I meant is that something may appear correct, but not be when carefully examined. Is that better? I'm sure you will find something to laugh about because that's your modus operandi.

peacegirl · #**1970** 04-17-2011, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, here is something you might wish to consider: if you care about your dad's legacy so much, you should take down that book and stop posting about it. This thread, and all the other threads you've participated in for years, are basically permanently archived and anyone can find them via Google search. To the extent that you keep disseminating this stuff, you are not going to bring about a "revolution in thought." You might well, however, succeed in making the name "Lessans" enter the dictionary as a synonym for "crackpot." Just something to think about.

Nope, it's already taken by that cube guy, and that guy who thinks he has the scientific proof of God. Please don't put Lessans in that category.

Doctor X · #**1971** 04-17-2011, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

f you actually believe Lessans fit into that category;

He exemplifies it as do you, as has been shown.

Quote:

If not, your ignorance Doctor X is preventing you from asking the right questions.

I seem to be asking the correct ones given you reaction and inability to answer them.

But, you know, unlike you I study the areas upon which I opine.

This is why I win.

This is why you and your cult continues to lose. :pat:

--J.D.

Doctor X · #**1972** 04-17-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would be seeing the sun explode as it happens, not before and not after.

Which, as in the case of an eclipse, does not happen.

So you sort of sink yourself right there. :wave:

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I know. It comes from your willful ignorance. :wave:

--J.D.

The Lone Ranger · #**1973** 04-17-2011, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is a necessary condition. That's how we are able to see what's out there in the real world. But the object seen because of the light is not carried in the light away from the object which the light is reflecting off of. A camera uses light to take a picture of an object or event. It does not take a picture of the light without the object.

Let's look at this another way.

White light (such as that produced by the Sun) is "white" because it contains all the various wavelengths of visible light. Different substances absorb and reflect different wavelengths of light, depending on the structure of the atoms and molecules that make them up. A molecule that absorbs specific wavelengths of light and reflects others is called a pigment.

This, of course, is nothing that's surprising to anyone, as it's 5th-grade science at best, and is very well-tested and well-confirmed.

Now, let's shine some white light on a leaf. Green plants contain two variants of a pigment known as chlorophyll.

Here's the absorption spectrum for chlorophyll. Note that it absorbs light in the blue and red portion of the spectrum, but reflects light in the green portion of the spectrum. So if I shine white light on a leaf, it absorbs the red and blue light, while reflecting the green light. From this fact, I can discern the chemical makeup of the leaf.

How is the light reflected (compared to the light that's absorbed) by the leaf not conveying information?

Indeed, comparing the light that is reflected by a substance to the light that is absorbed by it is a big part of chemistry. It's one of the most common ways by which substances are identified.

peacegirl · #**1974** 04-17-2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That isn't what the question is. Obviously, if we're in the dark and the lights are suddenly turned on, the pupils are going to have a delay in closing quick enough. But I was talking about whether the pupils could still react to light that is being reflected off of a distant object, and whether the property of light would cause a reaction in the pupils even if it wasn't directly impinging. I know you all think I'm crazy, so I need to take a break. I can only take so much of this onslaught of negativity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kael

For the sake of keeping this wonderful thread alive, I will attempt to address you as if you are simply confused, rather than crazy (I don't think you're crazy so much as completely invested in upholding what you have already accepted as undeniable truth, regardless of what the evidence you keep saying will validate it actually shows). Let's pretend that light does not carry any information at all, that our retinas do not absorb it and utilize the resulting changes in energy states to send signals to our brain, which then reconstructs that information into an image. Let's pretend, instead, that light is, for some reason that is apparently inexplicable, necessary to see by but not the actual medium of sight, that this medium instead exists in our brain which only "looks outward" and does not receive any external stimulus during the visual process.

Immediately there are problems with this model, aspects of measurable, testable reality that it does not account for. Why should the amount of light matter if it is only a "condition of sight" and not the actual medium of that information?

The amount of light matters for the same reason that it matters if it was the actual medium carrying the information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kael

Where does the information about a distant object come from?

It comes from the object itself. That information is the actual object (it's the real deal, not an interpretation of the real deal) and the light is what allows us to see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kael

If there is no medium by which the information comes to us, then it must already exist in the brain.

No kael, nothing exists in the brain. The brain looks through the eyes, as a window, to see the external world in all of its glory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kael

If there is such a medium, but it is not light, what is it? How does it reach us instantly? How can we detect it with instruments besides our own eyes and brain? Why do cameras of all sorts work, even though they have no brain to "look outward" and "project words onto a screen of undeniable substance."*

Nothing reaches us instantly; or FTL as some people have mistakenly believed. We see the object instantly. There is nothing mysterious to detect in the brain. Cameras work because they take a snapshot of an object or event in the real world and the light is what allows this picture to be taken. The film is like the retina, but a camera can't tell us whether the eyes in a human are afferent or efferent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kael

Here's the thing. Lessans does not even attempt to address any of these questions, he simply continues to assert, as though it had already been demonstrated, that light does not stimulate the optic nerve, and that we see distant objects in real time rather than with the delay necessary in order for the information-carrying medium (light) to reach our eyes, and all the other facets of this absurd model that he puts forward as 'undeniable.' The current model already accounts for these things, and there is (so far) no phenomenon we have encountered that it does not account for. What that means, in the world of science, is that competing models have the bar set very high, and require a great deal of supporting evidence and explanatory power, at least equal to if not greater than the amount provided by the current model. Your father's book provides neither of these things. This is why scientists wouldn't give him the time of day, not because he only made it through the 7th grade. It is because his claims do not even begin to adequately explain observable reality which already has an adequate explanation in our current models.

That's just it, it is circumstantial. The scientific model of how the eye works looks airtight. Most of it is, except for this one aspect of sight. I already said this many times: The way he came to his conclusions negated afferent vision because of how we are conditioned by words. That would make beauty and ugliness (which is more than a subjective preference because of the conditioning that occurs) part of the light that travels to the optic nerve to be interpreted by the brain as a true aspect of reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kael

You claim that further experimentation is necessary, and express certainty that it will eventually validate this idea, this 'revolutionary' model of sight. Lessans and yourself also continually use phrases like 'undeniable' and 'astute observations' to describe this idea as well as the rest of the book. These phrases cannot be honestly applied to something that has not yet been demonstrated. If you or Lessans understood how science works and why it works that way, you would know that, and even if the ideas put forward by the book remained unchanged all the grandiose language about undeniability and how the scientific community picks on Lessans by not embracing his ideas would not be there. It would be a much humbler book, and probably a great deal less ponderous a read.

I will start with your last sentence first. It is only a ponderous read because it hasn't been validated. It feels tedious for that reason. Believe me, if it was confirmed valid, you would be able to read this book in one or two sittings. It all depends if it captivates people's curiousity. Unfortunately, neither the interest or the curiosity is there. Actually, these phrases do apply if you can see the reasons for his conclusions. I told everyone, he came in the back door. He stumbled upon this conclusion indirectly. If you can't see that his reasoning is valid and sound, it will look like he had nothing but an assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kael

Of course, it would still be demonstrably wrong about how light, the eyes, and the brain works, but at least it wouldn't pretend that anyone who doesn't agree with it is a dogmatically entrenched imbecile who simply doesn't understand it.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never called anyone a dogmatically entrenched imbecile. I have a deep respect for people in here (although I don't like some of their mannerisms), or I wouldn't be here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kael

*As an aside, can you rephrase this? Because, believe it or not, it makes no sense whatsoever, even in the context of Lessans' ideas of sight. What screen? What substance? How is it undeniable?

He was separating a screen of undeniable substance which is any substance in the real world that exists, from a word that is projected onto a screen of undeniable substance. For example, you can't put a tooth fairy in a classification of undeniable substance. For your benefit I will post this one excerpt again. Maybe it will become clearer.

The confusion between what is real and
what is not comes from the fact that these words not only describe
real differences that exist in the world, but they also create external
values when there are no such things. I will give you an example
of this by using a movie projector.

Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it.
I am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping
the switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the
wall. But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself
because the girl is not there. We have been doing the same thing
with our brain regarding values.

The differences in substance were
not only divided up by the use of words like man, woman, child,
etc., but became a screen upon which we were able to project this
value. Drop a negative plate or word slide in your brain projector
and flip the switch. Well just take a look, there is now a beautiful
girl, a homely man, an ugly duckling! Turn off the switch (remove
the negative plate or word slide) and all you see are the differences
in substance because the projected values have been removed.

Since we were taught that the eyes receive and transmit sense
experience on the waves of light it was impossible to deny that this
beautiful girl actually existed and was a part of the real world; and
when we changed the standard hidden in the word, all we did was
change the screen. By saying that this person may not be beautiful
physically but has a beautiful soul, we were allowed to see ugly
souls as if they, too, existed externally. Scientists, believing that
the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed what man
saw with them because they were unaware that it was possible to
project a fallacious relation realistically.

Consequently everything
in the external world will be distorted if the words through which
man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if the
relation which is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an
inaccurate negative which is then projected realistically upon
undeniable substance. The word ‘beautiful’ has absolutely no
external reality and yet because it is learned in association with a
particular physiognomy a beautiful girl is created, when no such
person exists.

Obviously there is a difference between the shape
and features of individuals but to label one beautiful and another
ugly only reveals that you are conscious of a fallacious difference
that is projected through your eyes upon substance that cannot be
denied — which makes the projection appear real. By having the
words beautiful, ugly, gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector
through which the brain will look at the external world, a fallacious
value is placed upon certain specific differences only because of
the words which is then confirmed as a part of the real world since
man will swear that he sees beautiful women with his eyes, but in
actual reality all he sees are different shapes and different features.

This so-called beautiful girl is not striking his optic nerve which
then allows him to see her beauty but instead he projects the word
onto these differences and then photographs a fallacious relation.

Awareness · #**1975** 04-17-2011, 07:01 PM

Quote:

" and therefore redefines what was possible at an earlier time. I hope this brings interest because it is absolutely and positively a breakthrough that has yet to be uncovered. "

Trying hard with so much effort to have peace somewhere is admirable.

And lets say when "two tribes" are fighting and together they come to the conclusion that this is taking so long and so much blood has been shed, then their pact will be their own, and will stand up strong and alone.

" Earlier time " ? I wish I lived in that time, but it was not a peacefull time.

We need people to stand up, and people are standing up.

Knowledge as in a book to bring peace is ludicrous.

People can, and they will.

These days I admire the irish people, but teenagers of both religions had to be killed while dancing together.

No matter, that is life.

Just take it easy Peacegirl, step by step, just like life does.