#3751  
Old 05-10-2011, 08:34 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
The rest of your fathers work is pretty much safe from critique, as they can only be proven by bringing the new environment about. It is safe from critique in the same way that a religion is - it will al become clear in the afterlife. But his ideas about sight put him square in the middle of science, and I am afraid that once he does that, he is fair game - and easily disproved.
Actually, for some of his ideas, such as the "Two Sided Equation," I think a case coud be made that he's still wrong, and empirical evidence could be found to show it. I personally don't see how eliminating blame will cause people not to act poorly.
Speciousssss, out of 150 pages, you finally asked a question that is relevant. I thank you so much, you have no idea.
That's simply not true.

But now will she actually answer the question or just dance around saying how much she likes it, and we should go back to the book because she really has no idea.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
specious_reasons (05-10-2011)
  #3752  
Old 05-10-2011, 09:25 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCXLV
Images: 8
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
But now will she actually answer the question or just dance around saying how much she likes it, and we should go back to the book because she really has no idea.
She will quote the relevant passages of the book, and claim I didn't really read the chapter on the 2-sided equation. Maybe she'll skip posting from the book and just go straight to blaming me for not understanding Lessans' genius.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3753  
Old 05-10-2011, 10:14 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

151 pages of the same-old same-old, is anyone else getting tired of this? Can't we start her farwell party early?

Are we there yet?
Reply With Quote
  #3754  
Old 05-10-2011, 10:55 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No, that's not true. There is a definite range of faces that would fit the description of someone who is above the line of demarcation of what is considered above normal, or beautiful. Within that range there will be differences of opinon. I've said this before in this thread. No one would consider the Wicked Witch of the West 'beautiful', would they? Obviously not, because this face falls below the line of demarcation that separates the beautiful (or above normal) from the ugly (or below normal). This is what I'm talking about, not a difference of opinion who is the most beautiful contestant in a beauty contest. Now do you get it? Probably not. :popcorn:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So there are a range of opinions on a large scale between ugly and beautiful. Sounds totally subjective to me.
It is easy to believe it's subjective because the conditioning is so well entrenched. I cannot be conditioned to liking vanilla ice cream if I don't like it, no matter how many times someone says it's delicious. That cannot be said for words that identify some as 'beautiful' and others as 'ugly'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Wrong. We have been so carefully conditioned, that those who believe these standards are accurate will judge a face very strictly. Those doing the judging, or anyone who is using the narrow version of beauty, will scrutinize a face and some celebrities will not meet that strict standard. If they have any asymmetry in their face, they will not be the 'beauties' of the industry, but they would never be called 'ugly'. Now do you get it? Probably not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What does this have to do with some people thinking Julia Roberts is beautiful and others do not think she's beautiful? Some people's personal judgments of beauty are shared by more people than others personal judgments...that doesn't make it not subjective, nor does it make it a conditioned judgment.
You are making it appear as if it's an unadulterated descriptor, but it is very adulterated since this individual cannot be considered ugly by anyone. Why is this? Her bone structure is such that she doesn't fall below this line of demarcation, which has already been set by society. You are saying this judgment of beauty happens to be what the majority of people share. But this is not true. If these words were not in use, there is no telling who would be attracted to whom because they would not be influenced by these words because of what the brain can do. The brain can project a value onto undeniable substance, unlike the other senses. That is why Lessans claimed the eyes were efferent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, that wasn't what he was referring to. If you befriend someone who is paralyzed and can't have sex, and you fall in love with this person's personality (which can happen), and you would rather be with this person than not, then you would figure out a way to work the sexual situation out. But, for the most part, people are looking for a sexual partner whether it's just for a one night stand, or for a more permanent arrangement in order to start a family. I'm surprised you think this is such an unusual observation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Lessans didn't use qualifiers such as "for the most part", allowing for exceptions, he used the absolutist word "Impossible". He also said love is nothing more than strong sexual attraction, which would preclude falling in love with a personality. I am surprised you are diminishing what he said.

Also, are you serious with this?
Quote:
you fall in love with this person's personality (which can happen)
Of course it can happen, it happens all the time. Most of us fall in love with a person, not their genitals as Lessans claims. How can you defend such shallow and disgusting views?
We fall in love with a person, but sex is part of it. If we were looking for a mate, and we met someone 'attractive' but found out he didn't have genitals to give us any sexual satisfaction or a child, the desire for this individual would diminish if this is what we wanted. We are talking about eros love, which symbolizes the desire for a sexual relation. We are not talking about agape love. He made no mistake by using the word 'impossible' in this tract.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
No, I do not know what you mean. All evidence indicates that all sensory input is processed and interpreted in the brain, including input from the eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I know that's what you think. Isn't this the whole point of this discussion, which is to show you that the evidence shows otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The evidence doesn't show otherwise. One man's observations, no matter how astute he thought they were, is not compelling evidence.
That's why you are not reading this book with any seriousness. His observations were more than enough to prove his case. Empirical evidence can be used to confirm that he was right all along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
My observation is that you are indoctrinated and mentally ill. Do you accept that as convincing evidence that you are? Why or why not?
That observation has no back up. It's an assertion. I know what you're getting at, and I don't think his observations about human nature, and yours about me, are comparable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Do you actually think when I say that a person can say something doesn't taste good 1000 times (without hitting a child and attaching an experience that would cause a child to have an aversion to a particular food), and a child still likes the taste of it (such as chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream) --- and when that same child hears over and over that a particular set of features is beautiful, and others are ugly, and the child begins to see the one set of features as more pleasing, and the other as very distasteful --- that this makes no sense at all? :doh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You attach much more meaning and power than is warranted to the words beautiful and ugly. You also seem to think parents use these words repeatedly regarding specific types of faces. I don't do that, at all, in fact I can't even understand why you believe it is some careful and universal thing.
I don't know about you, but I have seen young girls very hurt by these words. Maybe you haven't. The pressure is immense to live up to a particular brand of beauty, even if it's to avoid being branded ugly. If you don't see it this way, maybe you live in a different world than me, but I see it getting worse and worse, and this does wear on a child's self-esteem unless he can find other things to compensate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I also already conceded that the brain categorizes, labels, defines, and attaches emotions to everything we receive from sensory input including visual input.
Why were you conceding? This wasn't even something I was asking you to concede to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I already conceded that vision is more important to humans than the other senses, and that vision takes up an enormous part of our brain, and that because of this associations made with vision are stronger.
This still doesn't explain how the brain works, so your concession that the visual part of the brain is enormous doesn't mean much as far as this discussion goes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What I disagree with, and what you have failed to convince anyone of, is that these labels are anything more than a subjective descriptor.
Hmmm, so now you're using others as your defense that these labels are nothing more than subjective descriptors? That's a little shaky, isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You have other options than calling me names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am not calling you names. I truly believe you are indoctrinated to the point of being brainwashed, and I believe you might be mentally ill as well. If I called you an asshole or a moron that would be name calling.
No LadyShea. You are trying to weasel your way out of what you have been doing. Maybe not as bad as the others, but you are doing it as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Are you doing this because you are in front of an audience and don't want to be looked down upon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
LOL, your personal neuroses are once again being projected on to me. You and Lessans seem to share some deep insecurities about trivial shit like appearances.
That's just it; it's not trivial to a young adult. It might be trivial to you because you're all grown up and it can take a back seat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
To answer your question, no, I don't give a shit if I am looked down upon. I have defended people I thought were being unfairly bullied, and I have had vehement disagreements with many members of this "audience". I have been called the biggest liar on the Internet and I have had a bloody painful death somebody wished for me described in gory detail.

I say what I think and if that leads some people to think I suck or I am a bitch or whatever so be it.
I think people hide behind their anonymity. I don't think they realize just how much pain they cause when they say such cold hearted things, even though it's just on a computer screen. Words hurt (I can only speak for myself), and I'm sad that someone said those things to you. I know that words can heal as well. Someone can say the same thing in a mean way, or a kind way, and it makes a huge difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How can I even talk to you if you can't continue our discussion without using these words that are meant to make me look bad in the eyes of everyone here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How you look in the eyes if others is not up to me. It's mostly up to you.
A mob mentality is very real to me. I could see the momentum building even in here, where one person started putting me down, and it became a free for all. That influences people, there's no doubt about that. If someone came on to this thread as a newcomer, they would be much more apt to join in without understanding anything about the book. Just like that little girl from Ireland who killed herself, the children weren't responsible for shooting her, but they did contribute to her death by all the bullying. Some children are more sensitive than others and take things to heart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
And BTW, there was no change in definition. You are rushing to a conclusion that is wrong because you want to be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Nope, if I am shown I am wrong I will admit it. Another thing I have done that has been witnessed by some in this audience.
I believe that you would admit something if you were wrong. So I will repeat, there was no change in definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No LadyShea. You are failing to understand what he meant. Wavelengths striking the retina is the same as wavelengths striking the film on a camera. There is information in the wavelength. But that same wavelength does not do what scientists think it does when it comes to converting those same wavelengths into impulses that then get converted into images. If you can understand this, we can move forward.[/I]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegilr
There is nothing being carried, therefore nothing magically appears in the brain. The brain sees, through the eyes, the actual object (not information carrying the object), even though it is these very wavelengths that allows sight to occur because nothing would be seen without them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You are failing to explain it in a way that allows us to see an image that is not an object big enough to be seen. You are also contradicting yourself as to whether light does or does not carry information and what that information is or is not.
If an image is not large enough to be seen, and one is not using a telescope to magnify the image, then we can't see it because the image is not traveling through space and time to reach us on the waves of light. The lightwaves exist, but only when the brain is looking directly at the object from which the light is being reflected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
A rainbow is pure light, not an object. Pure light is not an object, let alone not one big enough to be seen directly. Where is the image of the rainbow therefore coming from? The light can't carry the image, according to you, nor can the light be converted to an image in the brain according to you. This is the same problem with images on a TV or the Sun for that matter.

Your model cannot explain how we see an image when there is no object there to be seen, if vision is efferent.

Do you get this? We cannot move forward until you can explain it.
All of these images are due to the spectrum of visible light (and the particular phenomenon that is causing them to occur). These images can be seen on a computer screen, on a TV screen, or as a rainbow, all because of light. It doesn't have to be an object for us to be able to see it efferently. If the image is close enough to us, we will be able to see it just as well as if the image was traveling to our eyes and decoded.
Reply With Quote
  #3755  
Old 05-10-2011, 11:06 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

How is pure light visible as a distinct image in efferent vision? Do the photons arrange themselves in place into the image for your brain to look at?
Quote:
If an image is not large enough to be seen, and one is not using a telescope to magnify the image, then we can't see it because the image is not traveling through space and time to reach us on the waves of light. The lightwaves exist, but only when the brain is looking directly at the object from which the light is being reflected.
The only part of the sun that is at all visible is the visible light portion of it's radiation. Without the light there would be no object to see. If the light, the only visible part of the sun, has to travel to Earth, and is not carrying any information, how can it be seen instantly without waiting for the light to arrive?

Last edited by LadyShea; 05-10-2011 at 11:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3756  
Old 05-11-2011, 12:59 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDXXVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Are you kidding? In so many words you have called him a quack by comparing him to some religious fanatic (a Muslim no less*) and joked about it. Well, it's not funny. Your laughter may be preventing some individuals from taking this knowledge seriously.
. . .

*What's "A Muslim no less" supposed to mean? Is this a display of intolerance/bigotry? That's what it sounds like.
So in addition to all her other delightful qualities, peacegirl is anti-Islam bigot and perhaps even a full-blown racist?! Oh. Oh, my. :vapours:

Were I a religious man, I'd say that peacegirl is an abomination in the eyes of some deity. Probably Xemour of Lessantology fame, the very same Xemour who approximately 75 million years ago brought billions of goils to earth, stacked them around pick-up bars, and made them all horny by dropping clothing-removal bombs on them.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Demimonde (05-11-2011), SharonDee (05-11-2011)
  #3757  
Old 05-11-2011, 01:43 AM
SharonDee's Avatar
SharonDee SharonDee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Gender: Female
Posts: VMDCCXLI
Blog Entries: 2
Images: 60
Default Re: A revolution in thought

"Goils" will never stop being funny to me.
:lol:
__________________
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (05-11-2011)
  #3758  
Old 05-11-2011, 02:10 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharonDee View Post
"Goils" will never stop being funny to me.
:lol:

Lessans will never stop being funny to everyone, with at least half a brain.
Reply With Quote
  #3759  
Old 05-11-2011, 02:11 AM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Which is probably why Lessan never saw how silly he was. . . .

--J.D.
Reply With Quote
  #3760  
Old 05-11-2011, 03:22 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDXXVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharonDee View Post
"Goils" will never stop being funny to me.
:lol:
Only the chemofist possesses greater lulzative staying power.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
  #3761  
Old 05-11-2011, 06:13 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
The rest of your fathers work is pretty much safe from critique, as they can only be proven by bringing the new environment about. It is safe from critique in the same way that a religion is - it will al become clear in the afterlife. But his ideas about sight put him square in the middle of science, and I am afraid that once he does that, he is fair game - and easily disproved.
Actually, for some of his ideas, such as the "Two Sided Equation," I think a case coud be made that he's still wrong, and empirical evidence could be found to show it. I personally don't see how eliminating blame will cause people not to act poorly.
Speciousssss, out of 150 pages, you finally asked a question that is relevant. I thank you so much, you have no idea.
As far as I can tell, this is merely completely unsupported - IE it is something we are told is true, but no evidence or compelling reason to believe it is provided. Apparently none is needed because it is an "astute observation".

My own observation that there is no need to think that justification is an absolute requirement for a harmful act, or that blame is a condition for justification, does not hold as much water, possibly because it is not astute enough. I cannot argue with this, as all levels of astuteness are decided by Pecegirl and there is no appeal.
Reply With Quote
  #3762  
Old 05-11-2011, 07:24 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
That's just it; it's not trivial to a young adult. It might be trivial to you because you're all grown up and it can take a back seat.
It's trivial to some young adults, especially those whose parents are all grown up and raise them to understand the triviality.

You, on the other hand, do not seem to have outgrown it. Appearances are very important to you. Why is that?
Quote:
I have seen young girls very hurt by these words. Maybe you haven't. The pressure is immense to live up to a particular brand of beauty, even if it's to avoid being branded ugly. If you don't see it this way, maybe you live in a different world than me, but I see it getting worse and worse, and this does wear on a child's self-esteem unless he can find other things to compensate.
That's a societal and parental problem, not a vocabulary problem. And, again, it's not universal. You see it more, and se it as a way bigger problem than I do, because you are looking for it, you are more sensitive to it. Is that because of your personal experiences, or because of Lessans teachings?
Reply With Quote
  #3763  
Old 05-11-2011, 11:45 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
Look, it's really quite simple:

1. Lessans made Astute Observations(TM).

2. These observations are ABSOLUTELY UNDENIABLE.

That's it. Case closed. Anything that you think is contrary to these really isn't. You just don't understand it properly.

There, I have summarized the last 149 pages, and I astutely observe that the next n pages will not substantively change, even as n approaches infinity. I even threw some mathematicals in there for you, so you'd know how undeniable that observation truly is.
Kael, IF his observations are absolutely undeniable, then the case IS closed. Doesn't that apply to anything that has been proved true? Obviously it has to be understood for it to be used for our benefit. And, BTW, he didn't throw in some mathematicals just to get people to think his observations were true? How misleading can one be?
Reply With Quote
  #3764  
Old 05-11-2011, 11:56 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
The rest of your fathers work is pretty much safe from critique, as they can only be proven by bringing the new environment about. It is safe from critique in the same way that a religion is - it will al become clear in the afterlife. But his ideas about sight put him square in the middle of science, and I am afraid that once he does that, he is fair game - and easily disproved.
Actually, for some of his ideas, such as the "Two Sided Equation," I think a case coud be made that he's still wrong, and empirical evidence could be found to show it. I personally don't see how eliminating blame will cause people not to act poorly.
You are like the person in the following dialogue. It's no surprise that you don't get the reasons as to why eliminating blame will cause people to act responsibly, not poorly. So why can't you keep an open mind until you find out why?

It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and
wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as
the Ten Commandments which came into existence out of God’s will,
as did everything else, and consequently you have come to believe
through a fallacious association of symbols that these words which
judge the actions of others are accurate.

How was it possible for the
Ten Commandments to come into existence unless religion believed
in free will? But in reality when murder is committed it is neither
wrong nor right, just what someone at a certain point in his life
considered better for himself under circumstances which included the
judgment of others and the risks involved; and when the government
or personal revenge retaliates by taking this person’s life, this too, was
neither right nor wrong, just what gave greater satisfaction.

Neither
the government or the murderer are to blame for what each judged
better under their particular set of circumstances; but whether they
will decide to think and react as before will depend not on any moral
values, not on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right
and wrong, but solely on whether the conditions under which they
were previously motivated remain the same; and they do not remain
as before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals
facts never before understood.

We can now see how the confusion of
words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have
compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to
assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free it would
give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this knowledge.

“I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it was not for our
penal code what is to prevent man from taking more easily what he
wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be
considered? Furthermore, what is to stop him from satisfying his
desires to his heart’s content when he knows there will be no
consequences or explanations necessary?

In the previous example it
is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk cannot desire to shift the
blame when he knows his parents are not going to question what he
did, but why should this prevent him from spilling the milk every day
if it gives him a certain satisfaction to watch it seep into the rug?
Besides, if the father just spent $1000 for carpeting, how is it
humanly possible for him to say absolutely nothing when the milk was
not carelessly but deliberately spilled?”

“These are thoughtful questions but they are like asking if it is
mathematically impossible for man to do something, what would you
do if it is done? How is it possible for B (the father) to retaliate when
it is impossible for B to be hurt? Contained in this question is an
assumption that deliberate and careless hurt will continue. As we
proceed with this investigation you will understand more clearly why
the desire to hurt another will be completely prevented by this natural
law.”

“Even though I cannot disagree with anything you said so far, I
still don’t understand how or why this should prevent man from
stealing more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no
more a condition to be considered; and how is it humanly possible for
those he steals from and hurts in other ways to excuse his conduct?”
Reply With Quote
  #3765  
Old 05-11-2011, 12:00 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You have really left me no other options than to believe you have been brainwashed, or are delusional. I have tried to lead you to see the inconsistencies in what you are defending for yourself, but you are all "I don't know what you are getting at"?

Lessans said light carries no information with it, and by that reasoning we shouldn't be able to see pure light...that is a necessary conclusion drawn from your premises. Yet, you have no understanding of why that is a necessary conclusion, nor can you explain why pure light is an exception to the "object large enough to see" rule he set.
I want to repeat: We can see pure light directly if the light is within the visible spectrum, just as we would see an object directly if it is within the visible spectrum. The operative word here is directly. This doesn't change the rule LadyShea. A rainbow, a star, the sun, etc. is close enough to be seen even though there is no object.
Reply With Quote
  #3766  
Old 05-11-2011, 12:10 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
The rest of your fathers work is pretty much safe from critique, as they can only be proven by bringing the new environment about. It is safe from critique in the same way that a religion is - it will al become clear in the afterlife. But his ideas about sight put him square in the middle of science, and I am afraid that once he does that, he is fair game - and easily disproved.
Actually, for some of his ideas, such as the "Two Sided Equation," I think a case coud be made that he's still wrong, and empirical evidence could be found to show it. I personally don't see how eliminating blame will cause people not to act poorly.
Speciousssss, out of 150 pages, you finally asked a question that is relevant. I thank you so much, you have no idea.
That's simply not true.
Your answer is based on a free will environment, so, of course, it seems antithetical to what we see everyday. But there is going to be a revolutionary shift due to the knowledge that man's will is not free. Why can't you keep an open mind specious until the investigation is over?
Reply With Quote
  #3767  
Old 05-11-2011, 12:18 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea"
A repeal of that Louisiana law is unnecessary, since the final language didn't say anything like what the petitioners says it does.

Took me 2 minutes with the Googles to find this. I am unsure of the original point of posting it was, peacegirl, but the final language encourages critical thinking and scientific methodology
Quote:
A. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the “Louisiana Science Education Act.”
B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

(2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.

C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
I want to add that this was the whole point of sharing this LadyShea. David is worried about people not using critical thinking to understand that they could be contributing to global warming. They will wave their hands in denial that global warming is actually taking place and will do nothing to help reduce their carbon footprint so that we don't destroy ourselves. This petition was to share the importance of science in the classroom when it comes to this issue, so that children do see the importance of their behavior on an extremely relevant issue. That's why I wanted to share it. Not everything I post is meant to be taken as a challenge.
Reply With Quote
  #3768  
Old 05-11-2011, 12:25 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
You are not getting it, that's why you think it's easily refuted. There is nothing being carried, therefore nothing magically appears in the brain. The brain sees, through the eyes, the actual object (not information carrying the object), even though it is these very wavelengths that allows sight to occur because nothing would be seen without them.
If the brain sees, then by definition it receives new information - your statement is self-contradictory.

Also, somehow, something must be detected - you cannot have observation without a medium. It is impossible, unless we re-write all we know of physics from the start.

Come now peacegirl - surely you must see that that statement doesn't even make sense?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But I already did - a long time ago. Your "connection" is made up of... nothing. Therefor, information appears in the brain carried by nothing - I call that magic. It is categorically impossible.
Yes, that's true. It would categorically impossible if information was being carried by nothing to the brain. But that isn't what is happening.
We see things - thus by definition, information appears in the brain. You read these words, and now you know what I said. This is new information, and it is now in your brain. Surely you cannot deny this?

Quote:
But there is nothing in this theory that is proven, except for the belief that it works so more theories can be built on this theory to create new ones. If it turns out to be wrong, all of the theories that were built on this one crumble.
If you are referring to the current theory of how sight works, then you are mistaken - it is something that has been tested again and again, and everything we find out bears the theory out. A theory is not a hypothesis.

This one has been tested for centuries, and nothing has come up to disprove it. More so - so many things work because of it that it is pretty much a certainty, in the same way that our current theory of where babies come from is pretty much a certainty. Something coming up to disprove it is about as unlikely as a new theory of where babies comes from.

Quote:
Vivisectus, he is not re-writing the entire field of optics, or physics. That being said, should he not have claimed something to be true because he was afraid of the disapproval he was going to receive? This man looked into it as deeply as anyone could possibly do.
...which, as we can see, was not terribly deep. A little bit more effort spent on learning the science behind what he was talking about and a little less of the grandiose system-building and he would have been in a much better position. Still completely unsupported, but hey, that has not been much of a drawback for all of our religions, so who cares?

Quote:
He is not easily disproved and all of the ranting and raving does not bring us any closer to the truth. The only thing that will bring us closer to the truth is more understanding as to how the brain works. If more empirical testing is needed, that's fine, but to reject what hasn't been thorough investigated is not what science stands for.
But he is - information does come into the brain - this is called sight. Just because we see means that information appears - by definition. I have spelled it out for you again below this reply.

The whole sight idiocy is easily shot down - I doubt very much a single person except you believes otherwise.

just to make sure you read it: We see things - thus by definition, information appears in the brain. You read these words, and now you know what I said. This is new information, and it is now in your brain. Surely you cannot deny this?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Read this bit below - by simply removing all the instant sight and efferent vision nonsense, which will be shot down anywhere were people have an even rudimentary understanding of physics, biology or optics, try this in stead:
It is not nonsense Vivisectus. I know davidm is always mentioning the sun being turned on and seeing it instantly, but he is not extending the relations accurately. He is using afferent vision to understand efferent vision, and that's why he is so sure he is right. He is also angry because he thinks I am contaminating science, and I deserve the hatred that fills this thread. I can even feel the hatred even though these hatemongers have been put on ignore. Now that's woo woo stuff. :)
Ermmm... no, in fact it is "efferent vision without information entering the brain" that is 100% pure woo. It is self-contradictory - meaningless.

If we see, then the brain reacts as if we have seen something. This means information has reached it - the brain has changed, and now contains the information "this was seen".

Can you honestly not see the massive contradiction in what you are saying?

I will repeat: We see things - thus by definition, information appears in the brain. You read these words, and now you know what I said. This is new information, and it is now in your brain. Surely you cannot deny this?


Quote:
And??? The brain is definitely capable of inferring from an image that is not complete, or creates an illusion. But this can occur efferently as well as afferently. This doesn't disprove Lessans, nor does it give less support to his [theory??]. I can't believe you actually think it does.
I don't. I am just offering you a method of still getting all the benefit of "efferent vision" without proposing crazy self-contradictory statements and getting laughed at by anyone who has even a rudimentary idea about science.

Quote:
All of these neat perceptions that the brain is capable of doing, the brain can also do if it is looking out at an object. And, by the way, it's "projected onto the screen of undeniable substance." This is not esoteric nonsense, and the fact that you didn't even know the right phrase makes me realize that you don't take this knowledge seriously at all. Could it be that the reason you don't take it seriously IS the same reason you will never understand it ever ever ever AS LONG AS YOU HOLD ONTO THESE IDEAS AS IF THEY ARE FACT? Think about it.
You miss the point. I am giving you an option to pursue that yields all the benefits of "efferent vision" without the crazy.

Just to see if I can get you to admit that your father was wrong about sight. Just to see if under all the iron dogmatism there is still some sort of rational person left. Because I cannot believe that you can read back the stuff you just said and not realize that it makes no sense - that you don't even know what it means, and would not be able to explain it in simple terms.

Do you will yourself into believing it makes sense? How else can you still believe it if you were shown so clearly that your statements are self-contradictory?

Do you deny that you now know what I have written? How did that happen without information entering the brain? If it entered the brain, it had to be carried by something, or we contradict all the know of physics.

Not only have you been shown that, but I have also shown you a way to keep the majority of your beliefs, but just remove the bits that are patently impossible and self-contradictory.

And STILL your only response is the endless repetition of nonsensical statements.

Honestly. I despair.
All I can say at this point is that there is a major disconnect in our communication. Obviously, information is entering the brain but that doesn't explain how. The medium is light, because without light we cannot see, and therefore we cannot use the information that sight would give us. He explains how that information is gathered by how the brain works. The only difference is that light is not turning into a signal in the optic nerve that can be decoded into an image. We use the light to actually see reality. We still get the same information but in a more direct way because the brain is able to see the object and record what it sees in memory, so that it can be retrieved and used to formulate new ideas. I will say this over and over and over and over until you finally get it.
Reply With Quote
  #3769  
Old 05-11-2011, 01:10 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCXLV
Images: 8
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
The rest of your fathers work is pretty much safe from critique, as they can only be proven by bringing the new environment about. It is safe from critique in the same way that a religion is - it will al become clear in the afterlife. But his ideas about sight put him square in the middle of science, and I am afraid that once he does that, he is fair game - and easily disproved.
Actually, for some of his ideas, such as the "Two Sided Equation," I think a case coud be made that he's still wrong, and empirical evidence could be found to show it. I personally don't see how eliminating blame will cause people not to act poorly.
Speciousssss, out of 150 pages, you finally asked a question that is relevant. I thank you so much, you have no idea.
That's simply not true.
Your answer is based on a free will environment, so, of course, it seems antithetical to what we see everyday. But there is going to be a revolutionary shift due to the knowledge that man's will is not free. Why can't you keep an open mind specious until the investigation is over?
The response, "That is simply not true" was to indicate that this is not the first relevant question after 150 pages. There has been plenty of relevant questions, but you have managed to ignore a good portion of them, or simply accused them of not reading/understanding the text.

I have my own ideas about free will, but I simply think that a person understanding they're blameless is still a person with the same survival needs and instincts. Finite amounts of resources creates conflict. I don't see how removing blame keeps you from killing/hurting me when I have food and you don't.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3770  
Old 05-11-2011, 01:12 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

On MSN today a video of a dog trying to play fetch with a bronze statue of a man

I wounder why the dog would think that a statue of a man sitting on a park bench would pick up a stick, throw it and play fetch with him.

What was the Dog seeing?

If someone finds the video on 'YouTube' please post it here.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
erimir (05-12-2011)
  #3771  
Old 05-11-2011, 01:16 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCXLV
Images: 8
Default Re: A revolution in thought

peacegirl, I'm going to pretend that you're not fucking insulting me every time you suggest I need to have an "open mind". Stop with the pleading about it.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-01-2015)
  #3772  
Old 05-11-2011, 01:17 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
opinions are sometimes stated as more than they are (to give them more weight), and therefore to appear more credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
"Appearance of credibility" means nothing. People either agree or disagree based on their own personal conclusions and people judge credibility on their own criteria.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I ask everyone to please preface it that way because many people take opinion as fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Your laughter may be preventing some individuals from taking this knowledge seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What the hell are you talking about? The expression of my opinions cannot prevent or cause anyone else to think or do anything.
They can't make anything, but they can influence if you are someone that is respected, and I am someone who is looked at as a crackpot. I am asking people to please state that this is their opinion when it is just an opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
People are free to read Lessans, you, me, religious fanatics, science journals, have discussions, contemplate and whatever else to come to their own conclusions. I have zero power to make other people think or do anything.
You're right. Maybe I am not giving people enough credit to use their own judgment. I'm afraid that people will use someone's opinion to conclude that Lessans is wrong. I get threatened by opinions because they hold a lot of weight if the person stating their personal opinion is a biologist, for example. That's why I harped on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Are you kidding? In so many words you have called him a quack by comparing him to some religious fanatic (a Muslim no less*) and joked about it. Well, it's not funny. Your laughter may be preventing some individuals from taking this knowledge seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
As for the competing piece, the religious fanatics writing style was almost identical to Lessans. He was saying the exact opposite, but in a very similar tone and using similar absolutist words. That's ironic and therefore funny to me.
Just like that little story about the pot that was too small was funny to me, but I got blasted for it. I don't think it's funny because you were putting Lessans in a very unfavorable light by comparing him to a religious fanatic. Lessans absolutist words are absolute because they are undeniable. This guys words are not. They are religious in nature without one bit of proof behind them. It was a cheap shot LadyShea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Additionally the religious fanatic (and who are you to judge him a "fanatic" in such a disparaging way as if he can't have found the truth?) provided pertinent scientific citations to support his views and Lessans did not. So, the fanatic actually wins. Also ironic and also funny to me.
But he didn't win because there was nothing in his proof that proved anything, except to use what he wrote as if it was proof so people would love God and have faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
*What's "A Muslim no less" supposed to mean? Is this a display of intolerance/bigotry? That's what it sounds like.
I took that out because I thought people would take it the wrong way. I thought he mentioned the Q'uran. The only reason it would be used as bigotry is not from me but others, who could misconstrue anything someone writes that is from the Middle Eastern descent, and therefore associate Lessans negatively because in their mind he is saying something similar. This is getting more and more nutty as time goes by.
Reply With Quote
  #3773  
Old 05-11-2011, 01:19 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
Look, it's really quite simple:

1. Lessans made Astute Observations(TM).

2. These observations are ABSOLUTELY UNDENIABLE.

That's it. Case closed. Anything that you think is contrary to these really isn't. You just don't understand it properly.

There, I have summarized the last 149 pages, and I astutely observe that the next n pages will not substantively change, even as n approaches infinity. I even threw some mathematicals in there for you, so you'd know how undeniable that observation truly is.
Kael, IF his observations are absolutely undeniable, then the case IS closed. Doesn't that apply to anything that has been proved true? Obviously it has to be understood for it to be used for our benefit. And, BTW, he didn't throw in some mathematicals just to get people to think his observations were true? How misleading can one be?
Put down 'sarcasm' as another concept that peacegirl cannot comprehend.
Reply With Quote
  #3774  
Old 05-11-2011, 01:20 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCXLV
Images: 8
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All I can say at this point is that there is a major disconnect in our communication. Obviously, information is entering the brain but that doesn't explain how. The medium is light, because without light we cannot see, and therefore we cannot use the information that sight would give us. He explains how that information is gathered by how the brain works. The only difference is that light is not turning into a signal in the optic nerve that can be decoded into an image. We use the light to actually see reality. We still get the same information but in a more direct way because the brain is able to see the object and record what it sees in memory, so that it can be retrieved and used to formulate new ideas. I will say this over and over and over and over until you finally get it.
I get it, and it's wrong. Simply put, Lessans explanation about how sight works is nonsense, and repeating nonsense will not make it any less nonsensical.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3775  
Old 05-11-2011, 02:23 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All I can say at this point is that there is a major disconnect in our communication. Obviously, information is entering the brain but that doesn't explain how. The medium is light, because without light we cannot see, and therefore we cannot use the information that sight would give us. He explains how that information is gathered by how the brain works. The only difference is that light is not turning into a signal in the optic nerve that can be decoded into an image. We use the light to actually see reality. We still get the same information but in a more direct way because the brain is able to see the object and record what it sees in memory, so that it can be retrieved and used to formulate new ideas. I will say this over and over and over and over until you finally get it.
I get it, and it's wrong. Simply put, Lessans explanation about how sight works is nonsense, and repeating nonsense will not make it any less nonsensical.
That's not an answer; that's an opinion specious. Give your reasons at the very least. If you can't, you are just reacting, and I will need to move on.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 15 (0 members and 15 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.36125 seconds with 14 queries