A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the object is no longer present, there is no light that travels lightyears away that brings the pattern or image (call it what you will) to the brain for interpretation.

I don't call it anything except light. We do not claim that light brings anything at all, remember?

If you accept the properties of light as observed and measured, you must accept that light travels until and unless it is absorbed and transformed into some other kind of energy. Do you accept this?

[LadyShea]

bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You just said it yet again. It is 100% wrong. It can be proven wrong with a flashlight and a mirror

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is light, and light travels. You are demonstrably wrong.

[LadyShea]

Hello Project Reason people! I read some of you are reading over here and maybe even joining...despite our viciousness.

I think Sam Harris is a dick, so I probably won't join over there, but wanted to welcome you here to

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hello Project Reason people! I read some of you are reading over here and maybe even joining...despite our viciousness.

I think Sam Harris is a dick, so I probably won't join over there, but wanted to welcome you here to

To coin an old phrase 'That's very white of you'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't call it anything except light. We do not claim that light brings anything at all, remember?

If you accept the properties of light as observed and measured, you must accept that light travels until and unless it is absorbed and transformed into some other kind of energy. Do you accept this?

No I don't accept this because it's misleading. It is a fact that energy is absorbed, but when you say that the remaining energy is transformed, I have no idea what you mean. All that remains is non-absorbed light. Nothing is transformed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

To coin an old phrase 'That's very white of you'.

You just implicated yourself as being no different than a supremasist. I am not suprised.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I don't accept this because it's misleading. It is a fact that energy is absorbed, but when you say that the remaining energy is transformed, I have no idea what you mean. All that remains is non-absorbed light. Nothing is transformed.

Are you shitting me? I did not say the remaining energy is transformed I said the absorbed energy is transformed.

You said you understood the basic laws and properties of light energy. When light is absorbed by matter, it is transformed to some other kind of energy like heat. Energy conversion is part of the laws of thermodynamics. Light that is absorbed and transformed ceases to be light. Light that is not absorbed remains light and retains all the properties of light...meaning it travels.

My statement was that light travels until or unless it is absorbed/transformed.

Now, do you accept this?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I don't accept this because it's misleading. It is a fact that energy is absorbed, but when you say that the remaining energy is transformed, I have no idea what you mean. All that remains is non-absorbed light. Nothing is transformed.

Energy is neither created or destroyed. When light strikes an object, the most common effect is the object is heated. There are other forms of energy that light can be converted to, like electricity (photoelectric effect in solar cells), or potential energy in chemical bonds (photosynthesis in plants). There's probably more effects than I'm aware of.

Anything that contradicts with the known behavior of light contradicts so much fundamental science, you will never succeed in convincing anyone who has any even basic understanding of science. This is why Lessans failed.

[naturalist.atheist]

If nothing else, this thread is a fascinating example of just how powerless people are in the presence of a full blown schizophrenic. Those arguing with the schizophrenic somehow think reason will work. And the schizophrenic thinks pure repetition is all that is needed to convince the world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hello Project Reason people! I read some of you are reading over here and maybe even joining...despite our viciousness.

I think Sam Harris is a dick, so I probably won't join over there, but wanted to welcome you here to

You've outdone yourself. What are the grounds for saying this other than serious prejudice on your part, which you claim to abhor? I cannot believe what you just said and how disgustingly insolent your last remark was. And you now expect anyone who supports Sam Harris to want to come here? You did not invite them; you criticized them in the most belittling way. I am not surprised.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Energy is neither created or destroyed. When light strikes an object, the most common effect is the object is heated. There are other forms of energy that light can be converted to, like electricity (photoelectric effect in solar cells), or potential energy in chemical bonds (photosynthesis in plants). There's probably more effects than I'm aware of.

Anything that contradicts with the known behavior of light contradicts so much fundamental science, you will never succeed in convincing anyone who has any even basic understanding of science. This is why Lessans failed.

Stop with the mantra specious_reasons. You really need to question your own specious reasoning, so take a little more time to think about what you are espousing before passing your thoughts on. People who are a little bit introspective can see the flaw in your flawed thinking. The reason no one sees the flaw here (as expected) is not because Lessans was wrong; it's because you're all in cahoots with each other (not purposely, but the effects are just as damaging), but because you're all blind to your own shortcomings.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop with the mantra specious_reasons.

Nope.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really need to question your own specious reasoning, so take a little more time to think about what you are espousing before passing your thoughts on. People who are a little bit introspective can see the flaw in your flawed thinking. The reason no one sees the flaw here (as expected) is not because Lessans was wrong; it's because you're all in cahoots with each other (not purposely, but the effects are just as damaging), but because you're all blind to your own shortcomings.

Please, I'd love you to show me why my thinking is flawed - if you are not capable, then maybe you could point me to "people who are a little bit introspective" who are willing to defend Lessans' ideas.

Have you found anyone?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That the light is already at the eye is not the issue. Your problem is that you have no explanation for where that light came from or how it got there. The afferent account can explain where light at the retina came from and how it got there. Your efferent account cannot, and that is why it fails.

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've outdone yourself. What are the grounds for saying this other than serious prejudice on your part, which you claim to abhor? I cannot believe what you just said and how disgustingly insolent your last remark was. And you now expect anyone who supports Sam Harris to want to come here? You did not invite them; you criticized them in the most belittling way. I am not surprised.

I told you why I think he's a dick back in December. He supports torture and racial profiling and is a bigoted Islamophobe.

I didn't criticize "them", I criticized Sam Harris. If anyone wants to discuss that with me they are welcome, and if they are offended because of my opinion of a public person based on his public statements, then too bad.

Also I didn't invite anyone. Some are already reading here and at least one has joined. I was just welcoming them.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is true, but this is not a reflection on Lessans. It's a reflection of the inherent problem when a bunch of people get together on discussion boards where they can feed off of each other and become one entity. It shows just how serious this issue is in regard to useful debate. This whole thread is an experiment in itself which could be used by psychologists because it shows just how difficult it is to get beyond the bias of the group whether it's in the academic world or on a typical online forum. This has farreaching implications.

If you are right about this then your only hope is door-to-door. And make sure that only one person is home. Because as soon as more people are involved then you have to deal with the bias of a group and you know how difficult that is.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is true, but this is not a reflection on Lessans. It's a reflection of the inherent problem when a bunch of people get together on discussion boards where they can feed off of each other and become one entity. It shows just how serious this issue is in regard to useful debate. This whole thread is an experiment in itself which could be used by psychologists because it shows just how difficult it is to get beyond the bias of the group whether it's in the academic world or on a typical online forum. This has farreaching implications.

Suddenly you admit that the thread is useful for psychiatric evaluation. Allrightythen. Let's have at it.

Delusions of grandeur. That's item number one on the list.
Delusions of persecution. That's number two.
Unrealistic belief in ability, knowledge, or ideas. That's number three.
Detailed and bizarre thoughts and ideas. Number four.
Distorted perception of reality. Number five.

I'm so glad you finally realized that a two year long thread is useful for psychoanalysis.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't call it anything except light. We do not claim that light brings anything at all, remember?

If you accept the properties of light as observed and measured, you must accept that light travels until and unless it is absorbed and transformed into some other kind of energy. Do you accept this?

I told you that I do not disagree with the fact that the speed of light is finite. What more can I say?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Nah, once Peacegirl gets the bit in her teeth, she'll never let go.

And you won't be satisfied until I do. Talk about obsessive.

[sadie]

HI. I'm from Project Reason and was invited here by an FF member to participate in the 1000 page celebration of this Peacegirl thread. However, I hope no one from there finds out LadyShea has been dissing Sam Harris because they might descend upon this site en masse and start a brawl. I haven't followed the controversy about Sam Harris, so I am not sure of the merits of whatever accusations have been made about him, but I distrust the media so I'm assuming the criticisms have been hyped. He always struck me as a reflective Buddhist type with his constant fretting about the well being of conscious creatures, but who knows? After all, I thought Tipper and Al were happily married.

I'm looking forward to chitchatting with you at the big party. I love my Project Reasons pals, but the constant tirades against religion can get tedious at times. I'm assuming there will be a greater diversity of opinion here, which might be refreshing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No they don't. They believe it on the basis of evidence. The same evidence that you have been unable to explain from your efferent perspective.

It sounds ridiculous particularly when you debate it, because you end up saying things that are contradictory and impossible every single time you try to explain yourself.

There is nothing contradictory unless you don't understand the version of sight that is being explained. The onus is on you Spacemonkey, but I have no desire to continue discussing this as you will find a way to make this concept look implausible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by sadie

HI. I'm from Project Reason and was invited here by an FF member to participate in the 1000 page celebration of this Peacegirl thread. However, I hope no one from there finds out LadyShea has been dissing Sam Harris because they might descend upon this site en masse and start a brawl. I haven't followed the controversy about Sam Harris, so I am not sure of the merits of whatever accusations have been made about him, but I distrust the media so I'm assuming the criticisms have been hyped. He always struck me as a reflective Buddhist type with his constant fretting about the well being of conscious creatures, but who knows? After all, I thought Tipper and Al were happily married.

I'm looking forward to chitchatting with you at the big party. I love my Project Reasons pals, but the constant tirades against religion can get tedious at times. I'm assuming there will be a greater diversity of opinion here, which might be refreshing.

I hope you enjoy the party, but I won't be joining you. Have a blast!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that I do not disagree with the fact that the speed of light is finite. What more can I say?

Um, you could answer the question. The speed of light is only one if its properties, do you accept the other properties of light?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by sadie

HI. I'm from Project Reason and was invited here by an FF member to participate in the 1000 page celebration of this Peacegirl thread. However, I hope no one from there finds out LadyShea has been dissing Sam Harris because they might descend upon this site en masse and start a brawl. I haven't followed the controversy about Sam Harris, so I am not sure of the merits of whatever accusations have been made about him, but I distrust the media so I'm assuming the criticisms have been hyped. He always struck me as a reflective Buddhist type with his constant fretting about the well being of conscious creatures, but who knows? After all, I thought Tipper and Al were happily married.

I'm looking forward to chitchatting with you at the big party. I love my Project Reasons pals, but the constant tirades against religion can get tedious at times. I'm assuming there will be a greater diversity of opinion here, which might be refreshing.

It's not media hype I base my criticism on, its his very own words as written by his very own hands.

In Defense of Torture
In Defense of Profiling

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't call it anything except light. We do not claim that light brings anything at all, remember?

So if light doesn't bring anything, as you claim, then how can the brain interpret images coming from said light?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you accept the properties of light as observed and measured, you must accept that light travels until and unless it is absorbed and transformed into some other kind of energy. Do you accept this?

Absolutely not. I don't accept this because it's misleading. It is a fact that energy is absorbed, but when you say that the remaining energy is transformed, I have no idea what you mean. All that remains is non-absorbed light. Nothing is transformed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you shitting me? I did not say the remaining energy is transformed I said the absorbed energy is transformed.

You said you understood the basic laws and properties of light energy. When light is absorbed by matter, it is transformed to some other kind of energy like heat. Energy conversion is part of the laws of thermodynamics. Light that is absorbed and transformed ceases to be light. [I]Light that is not absorbed remains light and retains all the properties of light...meaning it travels.

Why do you keep bringing up that absorbed light is transformed? I know that. We're talking about non-absorbed light. You assume that non-absorbed light (or the partial light spectrum) travels on forever. I disagree with this. The partial light spectrum is joined (so to speak) by the full light spectrum as it disperses.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My statement was that light travels until or unless it is absorbed/transformed.

But that's an assertion LadyShea. You are constantly calling me out on my assertions; well now it's my turn. You have no actual proof that this non-absorbed light (this partial spectrum of light) travels through space/time and only transforms when it strikes another object. This is a logical theory based on the afferent model. It is not proven.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now, do you accept this?

No.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that I do not disagree with the fact that the speed of light is finite. What more can I say?

Do you also agree that the speed of light is constant and for light to be light it must be travelling at the speed of light?