A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

After all this time do you actually think this is what I'm saying?

World English Dictionary
teleport (ˈtɛlɪˌpɔːt)

— vb
( tr ) (in science fiction) to transport (a person or object) across a distance instantaneously

Were you right or wrong to claim that teleportation consists of photons being at two different places at the same time? Are you aware of having been corrected on this exact same point before? If light can reach the retina in zero time and without traveling the intervening distance, then has it teleported according to the definition you just quoted back at me?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to talk to you unless you stop imitating NA, otherwise I'm putting you on ignore. It's as simple as that. I don't think you understand my seriousness.

How can light be interacting with the retina without actually being at the retina? How can light be at the retina as soon as the Sun is turned on? Light getting from one place to another instantly and without traveling the intervening distance is teleportation.

[LadyShea]

I think she is redefining "interacting" as simply "seeing". She is saying if you are seeing something, then the light is interacting with the retina.

We, of course, are defining it as a photochemical physical interaction requiring immediate proximity.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does it get there? Photons must touch and be absorbed by the camera film for a picture to be taken. Touch, physically. Like shaking hands.

And what on Earth do you mean it "has to be" at the camera? You use modal verbs oddly...and it is so odd and so consistent. Did Lessans talk like that?

Bump

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I want them to read the book. I might just send them the mp3 first. It's not as long and it is Lessans speaking. You don't even understand marketing, do you? I don't want to come off too strong in a letter. I want to capture their interest, and I know what it sounds like when some stranger on the internet starts making huge claims. I have to be careful how I present myself.

Remember all the times she lectured us that the whole book had to be read, in order from first to last, else we could not possibly grasp the reasoning of the great man? Well, there is another claim she made that she forgot all about, I guess!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

And in order for peacegirl to make her case she would have to submit this thread as evidence. I don't think she would want to do that. She may end up a ward of the court.

Allright, so what's the down side?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to talk to you unless you stop imitating NA, otherwise I'm putting you on ignore. It's as simple as that. I don't think you understand my seriousness.

You flatter me peacegirl, but I doubt spacemonkey would ever imitate me. Consider that your illness is that obvious.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

She may not be able to tell the difference.

HWGA, is there a down side?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Exactly - the light does something that has never been observed, and that contradicts the laws of physics as we know them today, that even contradict the observations we make when we simply shine a laser pointer at the moon and measure how long it takes for it to show up, when we observe the moons of Jupiter, of every damn spacecraft we ever sent out .. and yet that is simply how it works!

What is causing this coherent bundle of observations that say the exact opposite is true? And why does it present them as true here on earth, while logically it could not ALSO be true on a distant planet? If neutrinos work the way efferent vision requires them to work, they would arrive in a radically different time-frame on, let us say, a planet around Alpha Centauri than they do here!!!

Clear proof that this force, this mysterious conspiracy of natural laws, is aimed at US specifically!

Something, dare I say someone? Is spinning a web of misleading observations around us. It is specific to our planet. It seems to be there in order for us to believe that vision is NOT instant, and that it is NOT efferent. And if you still need yet another example of the terrifying reach of this unknown force, then just consider this:

It's eldritch hand reaches even into your very body.

Dissect any human, and inside... right next to its very BRAIN! you will find what looks and acts exactly like a set of afferent nerves leading from the eyes to the brain. Try to activate it, and the current will only go ONE WAY: from the eyes to the brain. Compare it's anatomy to that of other afferent nerves, and you will see it looks and is structured exactly the same down to the smallest level. And yet, thanks to the wonders of infant sight and personal pronouns, we KNOW they are in fact efferent!

Is there no limit to it's power? How can we possibly hope to escape this deception, if whatever is deceiving us can leave red herrings inside our very bodies? What kind of sick game is this force playing? Why does it rend and twist reality itself just to keep us fooled?

I would suggest you all don your tinfoil hats, but really, what's the point? Dare we challenge this mighty force? Look what happened to Lessans, who had the audacity to gainsay it! Completely ignored by the vast majority of the world and ridiculed by the dozen people who are even aware of his work, even though his logic was Mathematical!

Not only is it everywhere, making mirrors and cameras work even though they shouldn't, it shows signs of vindictiveness. Beware! Stay in the matrix! Do not go through the rabbit hole! It is everywhere, it can do anything, and it clearly does not WANT us to find out about the true nature of reality!!!

You win the prize for having the least understanding of this work, but saved by your originality.

[peacegirl]

Let us examine the known facts:

1: For more than 50 years, a known super-genius was trying to spread awesome knowledge that was going to save the world. As a teriffically astute student of human nature, he knew exactly how to write his knowledge down in such a way as to be very appealing, and with a clarity and logic that no person could reasonably deny.

2: Unfortunately, some of what he was saying gainsaid the galaxy-wide conspiracy of forces that was put in place to make it seem as if sight is not efferent and instant.

What are the results? Did Lessans make a fortune? Was he elected President of the World by the grateful populace? Did world peace ensue?

No! He died a complete unknown, without ever convincing anyone. A man who was a complete genius, and who specialised in human nature! Who worked and studied on this creation for ten hours every day, while still finding time to hold a job as a salesman of home-improvement equipment!

So then his daughter becomes the only person who is even aware of this work. What happens to her? Does she start a grass-roots movement? Does she let the book, written by a master of the human psyche, a man who honed his already razor-sharp talents of persuasion for decades selling home-improvement and construction materials, pass from hand to hand, increasing it's number of adherents every time it is read? Do ever-growing groups of converts copy the book by hand to pass it on, thus starting an exponentially growing wave of Lessanism that takes the worlds of philosophy, science, politics and teenage fashion by storm?

No! She sits at home, arguing with some internet time-wasters, as the very roof that shelters her falls apart around her and piles and piles of the Book to End All Self-Help Books slowly get mouldy around her.

How can this be? There is only one explanation.

Something is intervening. It intervenes every time one of us reads the book. The wise and undeniable logic of Lessans is replaced by self-congratulatory and fallacious codswallop. Peacegirl does not notice this, because all her interactions are intervened with in the same way. Her very succinct and clear messages, inspired by the writings of her wise and sagacious father, are intercepted and changed into incoherent nonsense designed to make her seem deeply ignorant and barely sane.

What makes it so confusing is that it works both ways: Every time we quote the book to her to demonstrate the many fallacies therein, it is replaced by that same conspiracy, and changed back into the clear and logical wisdom that she knows so well. This is why she is so surprised that people think the work is fallacious. How can they see fallacies in there? There are none!

And she is right: the work SHE sees, has no fallacies. (P) reality remains perfectly logical. It is the entire rest of the world that is crazy. It is a cruel trick that the dark forces play on her. Defy them, and their revenge will haunt your family for GENERATIONS! We are dealing with forces here that are beyond our ken. They control everything, and they do not take kindly to being gainsaid.[/quote]

I must say you have a talent for fiction!!!

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No, teleporting is not being 'two places at the same time', it is being one place one instant and another place the next instant, without phisically traveling the distance between.

To do that, it has to be in two places at once at one point in time. At least, no case is known that doesn't have that property.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think she is redefining "interacting" as simply "seeing". She is saying if you are seeing something, then the light is interacting with the retina.

We, of course, are defining it as a photochemical physical interaction requiring immediate proximity.

Wrong. If the eyes are capable of seeing an object in real time, then... (and this is what you're missing) the non-absorbed light is instantly at the retina. If it traveled away from the object, then you are going back to afferent vision because you're implying that we see the image from light. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, teleporting is not being 'two places at the same time', it is being one place one instant and another place the next instant, without phisically traveling the distance between.

Originally Posted by But

To do that, it has to be in two places at once at one point in time. At least, no case is known that doesn't have that property.

Fair enough. But this is not what's happening But.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course not. Slander has to be false.

That's exactly what it is. It's disgusting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Speak for yourself Spacemonkey. You don't know what is in the minds of everyone here, nor do you know every person who is listening in and why they are here. You are taking it upon yourself to judge not only my motives but everyone else's.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Don't be ridiculous. You've admitted yourself that you are wasting your time here and that you know no-one here considers Lessans' ravings to be of any (non-comedic) value.

I don't know, and neither do you, who may be listening in and wanting to know more but they wouldn't dare open their mouths with all of you ready to chop their heads off. And you think this forum resembles freethought?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fair enough. But this is not what's happening But.

No shit!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. If the eyes are capable of seeing an object in real time, then... (and this is what you're missing) the non-absorbed light is instantly at the retina. If it traveled away from the object, then you are going back to afferent vision because you're implying that we see the image from light. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

If light is located "at the retina" it had to get there. Photons can't be at a location without some mechanism for coming to be at that location. How does it get there?

What's hard to grasp is how the light gets to the retina, because you keep avoiding the direct question with your mealy mouthing. Answer it. How does the light come to be at the same location as the retina?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

To do that, it has to be in two places at once at one point in time. At least, no case is known that doesn't have that property.

Can you cite any cases of teleportation that has either property, in reality not fiction?

[LadyShea]

For it to be instant, it does need to be both locations simultaneously for some period of time...maybe it's measured on plank time it's so short, but yeah, other wise that time would be travel time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I'm not making the same errors over and over again.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you are. You do it again in this very post. I'll wager you don't recall being corrected before on what teleporation means. Do you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you better be careful about how you address me because I will put you on ignore. You seem to have a need to put me down. If you think this is going to motivate me, you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not trying to motivate you. I'm trying to draw your attention to the undeniable evidence of your own mental illness. I'm not trying to insult you with this. I'm absolutely serious.

No, you are not trying to help me. You are frustrated and you're trying to goad me on to give what you think is a reasonable answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Teleportation is when a photon is at two places at the same time...

No, it is not. That is not what teleportation is. And you've made this exact same mistake before, and been corrected on it before. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said you keep repeating the same mistakes.[/quote]

Teleportation is a term that refers to a number of theories and notions concerning the transfer of matter from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them.

Teleportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know this is what I meant, so why are you working so hard to make me look scatterbrained?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but I already explained that light energy is always being emitted and replacing the non-absorbed light. That is what travels, but the non-absorbed light that splits when the object absorbs the other colors of the visual spectrum, does not travel.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It travels, it doesn't travel, it travels, it doesn't travel... Do you have any idea how many times you've reversed your position and contradicted yourself on this one point alone?

It's not a contradiction Spacemonkey. I have said all along that light energy from the Sun travels, but when light gets absorbed by substance, the remaining non-absorbed light does not travel millions of miles to reach our eyes. It allows the object to be revealed through its light. That's what I mean when I say light is a condition. You believe non-absorbed light (the pattern of the object) bounces off of the object and travels forever, which is a misconception.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still imagining that light has to travel long distances, therefore we cannot be seeing the object in real time. But you are, once again, not thinking in terms of efferent vision. I will repeat: If the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen by the eyes, then that changes the physics involved.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you admit your account violates physics?

No, that's not what I meant and you know it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If no light has yet reached the Earth, then how can there be a mirror image consisting of light at the retina to interact with it? If the non-absorbed light does not travel, does not stay there at rest, and does not teleport, then what does it do? When the ball first becomes red, how can red photons (which are only just beginning to not be absorbed at the ball's surface) be instantly at the camera film without traveling there and without teleporting?

Spacemonkey, you can't just think in terms of light without thinking in terms of the object. You are acting as if light is traveling toward the eye, which leaves out the object entirely. Wasn't it you who said it doesn't matter if the object is present or not? That is the opposite of the efferent model and the reason you're so confused.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know this is what I meant, so why are you working so hard to make me look scatterbrained?

Do you know how many times you have said something along the lines "You know what I meant" or "That's not what I meant, what I meant was" as well as "What Lessans meant was...."?

Why don't you say what you mean instead of saying something else and then expecting people to know what you really meant which was not what you said?

You appear scatterbrained because you act like a scatterbrain.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[T]he non-absorbed light that splits when the object absorbs the other colors of the visual spectrum, does not travel.

If it does not travel what does happen to it?

[davidm]

Since everyone (except peacegirl) knows that we don't see in real time, and real-time seeing has by now been disproved by probably more than 100 separate but mutually reinforcing examples, my question is: Why is anyone bothering to discuss the "mechanism" of real-time seeing with peacegirl, when we all know that real time seeing does not exist? It's exactly like, and just as pointless as, discussing the "mechanism" that accounts for the fact that the world is flat. Since the world is not flat, what is the point in discussing non-existent flat-making physics?

My suggestion is that in response to her nonsense, just simply point out that we don't see in real time.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

Remember all the times she lectured us that the whole book had to be read, in order from first to last, several times else we could not possibly grasp the reasoning of the great man? Well, there is another claim she made that she forgot all about, I guess!

[LadyShea]

when light gets absorbed by substance, the remaining non-absorbed light does not travel millions of miles to reach our eyes.

Nobody has said that reflected light has to travel millions of miles to reach our eyes unless the object being seen in the example is millions of miles away. What are you talking about?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The book does make grandiose claims though.

Of course it does, because the claims are grandiose, but I have to get people somewhat familiar with who I am before I announce the claims.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I do not think that listening to it in stead of reading it will make much of a difference. And the grandiose claims are not even your biggest problem.

The claims are valid and the reason I'm doing this. Listening to the author has more appeal, and listening to an audio is easier for many people.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Unless you repackage this as new age philosophy, drop the whole section about sight,

Are you crazy? I wouldn't do that for you or anyone else.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

and try to reduce the condescending and self-congratulatory tone of the book this will not go anywhere. Even piles of nonsense like The Secret and Dianetics manage to at least appeal to people.

I read the intro again and I don't see it as being condescending although it was a little longwinded. He had to address the book in this way to prevent people from using fallacious standards to judge the content. If it bothers you, you are probably the type of person whom this intro was intended for.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You can fail to make a logically coherent argument and still sell books. You can have a style that people tend to dislike reading and still sell books. But you cannot do both and still sell books.

I am satisfied with the book. If you think you can do a better job, then you write it. It's funny how easy it is to sit on your ivory tower and criticize what you couldn't explain even if I was offering you a million dollars to do it.