A revolution in thought

[koan]

You've got three types of people in the world:
1) People who haven't read the book.
2)People who have read the book and don't agree with you.
3)People who tried to read the book and couldn't finish because it was too painfully embarrassing that he wrote it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

You've got three types of people in the world:
1) People who haven't read the book.
2)People who have read the book and don't agree with you.
3)People who tried to read the book and couldn't finish because it was too painfully embarrassing that he wrote it.

This whole thing has gotten insane. Why would you even care Koan what people think unless you are looking for stimulation. Are you that bored in your life to come here and try to put me down in a way that doesn't add up? You are a fraud koan; your motives are phony. Anyone will be able to see that so I suggest that you stop your ridiculous rebuttals now, or you will be seen as a vindictive individual who has nothing better to do than to come online and attack someone who you don't even know. Or, the other motive is that you want to shine and be known as someone who attacked me and was right.

The irony here is that you cannot even explain the reasoning in the book. You're totally lost. So be it. I'm just warning you that you can vindicate yourself. You have an out. USE IT. I doubt that you will. This is really sad and I truly wish you happiness, but you cannot ruin what is true. You're putting all your energy into something you cannot alter. Do you even understand what I'm saying? Can you alter gravity? You can't, and the same applies here.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl at PR

You cannot stand that Lessans could have been right, that light only has to be at the object, not on Earth. You just can’t seem to wrap your mind around this and, as a result, you are badmouthing Lessans. Is that fair Spacemonkey? No it’s not.

Hey Peacegirl! Where does light have to be for vision to occur according to efferent vision? At the retina, or only at the object?

[Spacemonkey]

All you're doing at the moment is whining and attacking people and their motives. What's the point? You aren't persuading anyone and you aren't effectively promoting your father's book. If you're not prepared to discuss things, why keep posting?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light ceases to travel, and if I did, I corrected myself.

You said it in the post I was responding to

light, without the object in one's field of view, does not travel beyond that optical range.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said light that disperses to the degree that it no longer provides any resolution on the retina, means that we cannot see objects beyond the point at which objects are within the eye or camera's field of view.

That is more or less the standard model of sight. We can't see what our eyes cannot resolve due to the dispersion of traveling light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does not travel beyond that point of resolution

So once again, you are saying light ceases to travel, despite that you also just said you never said that. Which is it?

That's fine with me. I have never disputed that light travels at a finite speed of 186,000 miles a second.

You are disputing that light constantly travels. If it is not traveling, it is not light. If it stops traveling at any point it is not light.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The irony here is that you cannot even explain the reasoning in the book. .

Well if Koan can't explain the book, then she's in good company, your's. However I think she did a pretty good job of analizing the book as it lines up with my impressions from reading the book, though I didn't have the fortitude to read it in such detail as Koan obviously did. But then according to you no-one has read the book, but that is puzzling, if they haven't read the book how can they quote from it and comment and question, in depth, the different parts of the book. Now that is a mystery, along with how you can continue to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence against, except that you refuse to look at or acknowledge anything that contradicts "The Book".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never disputed that light travels at a finite speed of 186,000 miles a second.

You have repeatedly claimed that non-absorbed light at an object does not travel through space and time. Are you changing your story again? You have claimed that non-absorbed light at the object does not travel but is instantly at the retina or film.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I actually did a lot of research on safety, enough to write two books on the subject. I had a statistics section in my book, Accident Prevention Awareness Program which I hope to update as products have gotten safer since 1991. There's also a greater societal awareness regarding safety and there are many good organizations out there. But statistics are just numbers; when it's your child, statistics don't mean much.

I seriously doubt that, as you seem not to understand the meaning of the word "research" at all. I have seen one of your books and some of the excerpts: it seems to include nothing but some rather obvious home-spun truisms put into awful doggerel.

Can you show me the actual research you did, the methods you used, and the data that your research yielded?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hey Peacegirl! Where does light have to be for vision to occur according to efferent vision? At the retina, or only at the object?

At the object Spacemonkey, but what you're missing is that if the eyes are efferent, the afferent account, which is the foundation for your reasoning, does not apply. So don't try to make this model look implausible just because you don't get it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You have repeatedly claimed that non-absorbed light at an object does not travel through space and time. Are you changing your story again? You have claimed that non-absorbed light at the object does not travel but is instantly at the retina or film.

What we see in the external world is a mirror image, which does not involve time because the image or pattern does not travel through space/time independent of the object. That's what I meant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I seriously doubt that, as you seem not to understand the meaning of the word "research" at all. I have seen one of your books and some of the excerpts: it seems to include nothing but some rather obvious home-spun truisms put into awful doggerel.

Can you show me the actual research you did, the methods you used, and the data that your research yielded?

You'll never like anything I do Vivisectus, even if it saves lives, because you don't like me. I really could care less. This is the beginning of the section on statistics:

ACCIDENT PREVENTION AWARENESS PROGRAM By Janis Rafael

ACCIDENT STATISTICS (This is just an excerpt; it's much longer)

The following statistics give the reader an overview of the extent
to which careless accidents have been responsible for death or
permanent disability. The most recent accident statistics have been
attained from the National Safety Council 2009 Edition of Injury
Facts, the National Coalition to Prevent Childhood Injury, also
known as the National Safe Kids Campaign, the National Safety
Council, and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Various articles featured in Consumer Magazine have also
contributed to the statistical research. The statistics given here
emerge from the most recent research available and range in year,
depending on the particular study. Disclaimer: Because these
statistics were taken from many different sources, they do not always
agree, indicating that some could be less than accurate. The message
remains the same; there are too many injuries and deaths from
accidental injuries which has become a serious public health hazard.

It has been documented that accidents are the leading cause of
death in the United States today, along with heart disease, cancer,
and stroke.* Accidents are the leading cause of death among all
persons aged 1 to 37. For youths 15-24 years of age, accidents claim
more lives than all other causes combined and about four times more
than the next leading cause of death. On the average, there are
eleven accidental deaths and about 1,040 disabling injuries every
hour during the year. While you make a 10-minute safety speech, 2
persons will be killed and about 500 will suffer a disabling injury.

Accidents have become a leading killer of innocent people and take
lives from all ages and walks of life. Even though major disasters
are front page news, the lives lost are relatively few when compared
to the day-to-day life losses from ordinary accidents. Studies from
the National Safety Council indicate that $143 billion dollars have
been spent on accidents and their aftermath. Motor vehicle accidents
cost $70.4 billion, work accidents $47.1 billion, home accidents
$17.4 billion, and public accidents $10.9 billion. Each area involves
losses of wages, medical expenses, insurance administration costs,
property damage, public agency costs such as police and fire
departments, courts, indirect losses to employers of off-the-job
accidents to employees, the value of cargo losses in commercial
vehicles, and damages awarded in excess of direct losses.

The cost
of wage loss in 1988 was $37.1 billion, medical expenses $23.6
billion, insurance administration costs $28.7 billion, fire loss $8.4
billion, and indirect loss from work accidents $22.0 billion.* More
important than the money spent to compensate for injuries and
the loss of life are the actual injuries sustained and the premature
deaths that continue to occur. In 2007, an estimated 74,000
unintentional-injury deaths occurred in the Home and
Community venue, or 62% of all unintentional-injury deaths that
year. The number of deaths was up about 1% from the revised
2006 total of 73,100. Another 20,600,000 people suffered nonfatal
disabling injuries. The death rate per 100,00 population was 24.5,
the same as the revised 2006 rate.*

In 2005, with 91 million homes, accidental home deaths
came to 22,500, and disabling injuries were 3,400,000. Falls
accounted for 6,500 accidents, poisoning by solids or liquids 4,300,
poisoning by gases and vapors 600, fires 4,100, drowning 800,
firearms 800, and all other home accidents 2,500. The number of
fires and loss by property use in 2005 as estimated by the
National Fire Protection Association numbered 2,436,500 in 2005
with property loss of $8,352,000,000. Although heating
equipment is associated with the greatest number of residential fires,
cigarettes accounted for the greatest number of residential fire
deaths. Heating equipment was associated with 150,000 (26 percent)
of the 581,5000 residential fires in one year. Cooking equipment and
electrical distribution were the next most common causes of fires
with 20 percent and 9 percent respectively of the total. Although use
of smoke detectors in residences has represented the greatest advance
in fire safety of the last decade, growth of smoke detector use has
slowed so that nearly 1/5 of homes were still unprotected as of 2005.

Nonoperational smoke detectors are also a growing problem,
since about 1/4 of all U.S. homes now have nonoperational detectors.
This means that only about 55 percent of all U.S. residences have at
least one working detector. Dead or missing batteries was the main
reason cited by researchers for nonoperational detectors, representing
about 61 percent of the non-working ones. About 36 percent were
attributable to incorrect installation, most often from placement in an
incorrect location. There is growing evidence which indicates that
those households most at risk of fires are also those which are least
likely to have detectors. The 1/5 of all U.S. homes without detectors
account for about 3/5 of all home fires.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well if Koan can't explain the book, then she's in good company, your's. However I think she did a pretty good job of analizing the book as it lines up with my impressions from reading the book, though I didn't have the fortitude to read it in such detail as Koan obviously did. But then according to you no-one has read the book, but that is puzzling, if they haven't read the book how can they quote from it and comment and question, in depth, the different parts of the book. Now that is a mystery, along with how you can continue to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence against, except that you refuse to look at or acknowledge anything that contradicts "The Book".

She has no conception as to why man's will is not free, or the two-sided equation. So don't use her as some kind of authority.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You seem to not be taking relativity into account, so you must now define past and present in the way you are using it.

The Hubble pics prove we can create images from traveling light...due to the distance, yes, we would consider those images of the past as relative to our current location. Note though, that all created images absolutely include "objects"...either the emission source or the reflection source.

If you believe that the Hubble deep field proves that we would see Columbus discovering America (a reflection source) if the reflected light from that source happened to strike our eyes, then this conversation would be over. But I believe Lessans was onto something, and that we would not ever be able to see this image because the event is gone.

I am taking relativity into account, but when it comes to sight (according to the efferent account), there is no such thing as seeing something in the past because what we see is always in the present, although we are able to remember what happened in the past due to how the brain stores memories.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said it in the post I was responding to

light, without the object in one's field of view, does not travel beyond that optical range.

That is more or less the standard model of sight. We can't see what our eyes cannot resolve due to the dispersion of traveling light.

So once again, you are saying light ceases to travel, despite that you also just said you never said that. Which is it?

You are disputing that light constantly travels. If it is not traveling, it is not light. If it stops traveling at any point it is not light.

I am not disputing that light constantly travels. I am disputing that the pattern of light (or the non-absorbed light) is seen beyond the point where it can be resolved, which is always in the optical range of the OBJECT.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The "greater satisfaction" principle: A human being is always driven to choose that which gives him the greatest satisfaction. If unpleasant actions are chosen that give the impression that someone does not choose that which is the most satisfying, then that just means that there was some other motive in play which we did not take into account at the time, and which nevertheless led to more satisfaction than the option of not choosing that action.

That is correct.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The book states that it is part of the laws of the mankind-system, something that describes human behavior in the same way that the laws of physics describe the behavior of the planets and the stars.

That is true, because all of life moves or pushes us off of our present position to a more satisfying position. Even animals move in this direction although it's not a deliberate movement. It's not always a deliberate action where humans are concerned either. If I have an itch, I scratch it. I don't say to myself, "Well I've got an itch so I'm going to move in the direction of greater satisfaction by scratching my itch."

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is a big difference between the two, however, and we can demonstrate the problem by following this comparison between the satisfaction principle and the observation of the stars and planets.

When we calculate the speed of the orbit of a moon like Io, we observe the moon at fixed intervals, determine it's distance from us at the time, take the time-delay due to the speed of light into account (as well as a number of other factors), and then come to a conclusion. This conclusion allows us to make a prediction: if the conclusion is correct, then we should observe this moon at location X at time Y.

Repeated observations should bear this out, otherwise we will have made a mistake. Tests of a different sort, such as launching a probe of known speed and direction, should confirm this again.

In other words: we can state that if our idea of the laws of physics work the way we think they do, then the observations should match the predictions time and time again, even when it is tested in a variety of different ways.

Now let us try to apply the same test to the "greater satisfaction" principle. We have a human being, and we are going to test if he will always choose that which leads to the greatest satisfaction. What can we do to achieve this?

We would have to determine beforehand what would lead to someone's greater satisfaction, and then see if a statistically significant number of human beings always make that choice. In fact, the result should be the same every time we observe humans make a choice that we have previously determined to be the most satisfying one.

No Vivisectus. It doesn't work that way. We cannot predict behavior in this fashion. This does not mean the observation that we always move in this direction is wrong. It just tells us that we cannot predict all of the antecedent factors that will compel a person to desire one choice over another at any given moment in time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But how can we determine what a person's preference is going to be before that person makes a choice? To do so, you would need an exact and in-depth understanding of someone's brain-state, on a level that we currently do not possess, and may never possess. And even if we did, we may discover that there are elements to functioning of the human brain that produce unpredictable results. Brain-states could fluctuate, making the result differ based on timing.

That is very true, but it's not our business to know what gives someone greater satisfaction. The only thing this knowledge is able to predict is that under the changed conditions, no one will desire to strike a first blow when not to strike becomes the preferable choice. Paradoxically, part of achieving this revolutionary change in conduct comes from not judging what is right for someone else.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The movements of moons we predict based on calculations which lead us to expect an observation that is subsequently checked. The statement "humans always choose that which is most preferable" is a prediction too. In the book it is wrongly used as a proven fact, by the simple expedient of saying after the fact that whatever WAS chosen had to have been what was most satisfying.

Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is not a prediction. It's a statement of fact. It is a description of the direction we all are compelled to move. That's it. If you keep this in mind, maybe it will be easier to understand how the two-sided equation works.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Since this is the case, one half of the "two sided equation" is based on pure speculation.

No it is not.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Six: The New Economic World

p. 284 The economic system I just described is mathematically possible
— but only when all people understand what it means that man’s will
is not free. These principles are just as undeniable when thoroughly
understood as any mathematical equation; and when political leaders
of the world recognize that it is now possible to unite all nations in
such a harmonious agreement that the causes of war and crime can be
entirely eliminated not only without hurting anyone but while
benefiting all mankind, this knowledge will spread quickly throughout
the earth. Until then, we will be forced to live in our present world as
a lesser of two evils.

Remember, in conclusion, my prediction that all
war will come to a permanent end in the next 25 years is not like the
prediction that an eclipse will occur at a given time because the
astronomer has nothing whatever to do with the motion of these
bodies and the crossing of their paths. All he is doing is charting their
course. Mine, however, is equivalent to the one a philanthropist
makes that a certain university will receive a donation of one million
dollars on a given date because he is the one who intends to donate
this money on that date. I am donating to mankind this scientific
discovery that gives man no choice as to the direction he is compelled
to travel, once the principles are understood.

Until that time, your
help, your willingness to learn about these principles and understand
them is needed. And once you understand them, you will be
compelled, of your own free will, to spread the news. When the fuse
is lit and this knowledge spreads to those who not only recognize its
significance but who also have the influence to lay it before those who
can disseminate it even more rapidly, then it will not take long before
we will develop this world of unmatched splendor wherein no one will
ever be hurt, and everyone will have sustenance and health. We are
given no free choice in this matter because God has taken it out of our
hands as we are compelled to move in this direction for greater
satisfaction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Worse than speculation, the "fact" simply defines itself into existence via tautology.

If you chose it, that means it was most preferable because we always choose that which is most preferable.

That's very true, but again you're missing an important factor in this. If we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, that means we can only move in one direction, and if it gives us less satisfaction to hurt someone under the changed conditions, our problem is solved. If we could move in the direction of lesser satisfaction when a more satisfying option is available, we could then hurt others in spite of a no blame environment, which we are incapable of doing. But when I say a no blame environment, there has to be a transition period so that people know in advance they are no longer going to be blamed by their government or any citizen of the new world. The irony is that if they want to steal, kill, cheat, etc., all they have to do is become a citizen and they will no longer be bound by the laws of their country. But they will be controlled by a much more powerful law; God's law, which will not permit them to perform any action that could hurt another without justification.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because you asked. I was directly answering the question that you asked. You should try that some time.

Why? Assume that the object is within visual range so that none of this nonabsorbed light becoming full spectrum nonsense even applies. What happens if the object is removed or ceases to exist during the time that the nonabsorbed blue light is traveling from the blue object to a photographic film? What stops that blue light from still traveling to and hitting the film to produce a spot of blue color?

You're thinking in terms of the afferent model again. Instead of thinking "objects reflect light"; think "light reflects objects." Maybe that will help you. If the object is not there, there is no non-absorbed blue light that is traveling toward the photographic film because the light and the object are the opposite side of the coin. You can't have one without the other, although light energy is always traveling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, Dennis was introduced to because of peacegirl. She joined his home forum and some from here joined there and then he decided to come here to check us out.

He said Lessans writing indicated a thought disorder

This guy doesn't know the first thing about this discovery. He made a clinical diagnosis of me like on the first day I was there? Not only am I not his patient, he is going against normal protocol just because he is assuming that anyone who claims he has the answer to world peace must, in his mind, have a thought disorder. What he has done is extremely unprofessional. He's no different than any other person online who is making premature judgments.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Six: The New Economic World

p. 284 The economic system I just described is mathematically possible
— but only when all people understand what it means that man’s will
is not free. These principles are just as undeniable when thoroughly
understood as any mathematical equation; and when political leaders
of the world recognize that it is now possible to unite all nations in
such a harmonious agreement that the causes of war and crime can be
entirely eliminated not only without hurting anyone but while
benefiting all mankind, this knowledge will spread quickly throughout
the earth. Until then, we will be forced to live in our present world as
a lesser of two evils.

Remember, in conclusion, my prediction that all
war will come to a permanent end in the next 25 years is not like the
prediction that an eclipse will occur at a given time because the
astronomer has nothing whatever to do with the motion of these
bodies and the crossing of their paths. All he is doing is charting their
course. Mine, however, is equivalent to the one a philanthropist
makes that a certain university will receive a donation of one million
dollars on a given date because he is the one who intends to donate
this money on that date. I am donating to mankind this scientific
discovery that gives man no choice as to the direction he is compelled
to travel, once the principles are understood.

Until that time, your
help, your willingness to learn about these principles and understand
them is needed. And once you understand them, you will be
compelled, of your own free will, to spread the news. When the fuse
is lit and this knowledge spreads to those who not only recognize its
significance but who also have the influence to lay it before those who
can disseminate it even more rapidly, then it will not take long before
we will develop this world of unmatched splendor wherein no one will
ever be hurt, and everyone will have sustenance and health. We are
given no free choice in this matter because God has taken it out of our
hands as we are compelled to move in this direction for greater
satisfaction.

All the logic of a Tarot card or astrological reading: if all war ends in 25 years (and when was this book written?), then the author is correct. If not, then whoops! It's only because you didn't really understand the precepts...not the author's fault!

Furthermore, the author writes: "my prediction that all
war will come to a permanent end in the next 25 years [is] equivalent to the one a philanthropist makes that a certain university will receive a donation of one million dollars on a given date because he is the one who intends to donate this money on that date" (my italics). Note the logic here: if one follows it to its logical end, the author does not need anyone to agree with him to end all war in 25 years since, as "philanthropist," he has, by analogy, the "money" to make it happen himself. Otherwise the very brazen analogy falls on its face. So why, then, does he need people to understand his precepts? In fact, the last paragraph relies very heavily on the people he simultaneously does not need. Man "has no choice," and yet is "compelled of his own free will." Pure contradiction which, intellectually speaking, is an insult to hundreds of years of thoughtful engagement with and articulation of the paradox of "fate"/destiny/character and free will.

I have no problems with this as a statement of belief that actively discounts human politics, psychology and lived experience. But if you expect this to just happen because it's the prophecy of an author you like/are related to, then that's the very definition of what Freud referred to as magical thinking - which, very aptly here, is one of the fundamentals of acute neurosis.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Six: The New Economic World

p. 284 The economic system I just described is mathematically possible
— but only when all people understand what it means that man’s will
is not free. These principles are just as undeniable when thoroughly
understood as any mathematical equation; and when political leaders
of the world recognize that it is now possible to unite all nations in
such a harmonious agreement that the causes of war and crime can be
entirely eliminated not only without hurting anyone but while
benefiting all mankind, this knowledge will spread quickly throughout
the earth. Until then, we will be forced to live in our present world as
a lesser of two evils.

Remember, in conclusion, my prediction that all
war will come to a permanent end in the next 25 years is not like the
prediction that an eclipse will occur at a given time because the
astronomer has nothing whatever to do with the motion of these
bodies and the crossing of their paths. All he is doing is charting their
course. Mine, however, is equivalent to the one a philanthropist
makes that a certain university will receive a donation of one million
dollars on a given date because he is the one who intends to donate
this money on that date. I am donating to mankind this scientific
discovery that gives man no choice as to the direction he is compelled
to travel, once the principles are understood.

Until that time, your
help, your willingness to learn about these principles and understand
them is needed. And once you understand them, you will be
compelled, of your own free will, to spread the news. When the fuse
is lit and this knowledge spreads to those who not only recognize its
significance but who also have the influence to lay it before those who
can disseminate it even more rapidly, then it will not take long before
we will develop this world of unmatched splendor wherein no one will
ever be hurt, and everyone will have sustenance and health. We are
given no free choice in this matter because God has taken it out of our
hands as we are compelled to move in this direction for greater
satisfaction.

Originally Posted by tramaturist

All the logic of a Tarot card or astrological reading: if all war ends in 25 years (and when was this book written?), then the author is correct. If not, then whoops! It's only because you didn't really understand the precepts...not the author's fault!

Tarot cards. You didn't read the first thing. Even in the audio he explains why he predicted 25 years, and under what conditions this would be possible. Even in my book, it's one of the first things that I clarify. What is with people that they spout off anything they want, and it can easily be seen they're ignorant of the facts.

Please note that when the 20th century is mentioned, it is referring to
the time period when this finding was first uncovered. This book was
meant to be read through the eyes of the author. His prediction that
in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the
conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken
place. Although it has been more than 50 years, there has been no
such investigation and, to this day, this discovery remains
unrecognized for its contribution. Due to the time lapse since the
book’s last printing the editor has added some recent examples to show
how these principles apply to our current world situation, but please
be assured that the actual discovery has not been altered in any way
and is explained in the author’s own words. For purposes of
consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the
book. No discrimination was intended.

Originally Posted by tramaturist

Furthermore, the author writes: "my prediction that all
war will come to a permanent end in the next 25 years [is] equivalent to the one a philanthropist makes that a certain university will receive a donation of one million dollars on a given date because he is the one who intends to donate this money on that date" (my italics). Note the logic here: if one follows it to its logical end, the author does not need anyone to agree with him to end all war in 25 years since, as "philanthropist," he has, by analogy, the "money" to make it happen himself. Otherwise the very brazen analogy falls on its face. So why, then, does he need people to understand his precepts? In fact, the last paragraph relies very heavily on the people he simultaneously does not need.

That is absolutely not true. It's quite the opposite. He was comparing an eclipse which does not involve any input from man, and the knowledge he is donating which involves recognition and development in order for the principles to work on man's behalf. You are making more out of this than need be.

Originally Posted by traumagurist

Man "has no choice," and yet is "compelled of his own free will." Pure contradiction which, intellectually speaking, is an insult to hundreds of years of thoughtful engagement with and articulation of the paradox of "fate"/destiny/character and free will.

This just shows me how difficult this is. I have gone over this many times, but you are a newcomer so no wonder you would think this comment is pure contradiction. But it is not. There is no insult to anyone here. He had a deep respect for history. There is no paradox between fate/desiny/character and free will, or the ability to choose since we don't actually have free will.

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

I have no problems with this as a statement of belief that actively discounts human politics, psychology and lived experience. But if you expect this to just happen because it's the prophecy of an author you like/are related to, then that's the very definition of what Freud referred to as magical thinking - which, very aptly here, is one of the fundamentals of acute neurosis.

I never expected this to just happen, and neither did he. Throughout the book he states that mankind is developing at a certain rate, and we can't get ahead of ourselves. And where in the world did you get the notion that this knowledge discounts anything that has brought us to this point in our history? Everything that man has experienced and gone through up to this point could not have been any other way. Unfortunately, he could not predict exactly when this new world would become a reality because of the multitute of factors involved that would play a role in the timing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At the object Spacemonkey...

So then why have you spent the last thousand pages arguing otherwise, and claiming that light has to be, and will be, at the retina for real-time vision to occur?

Why do we even have light-sensitive rods and cones in our eyes if we can see even when there is no light present at the eye to interact with them?

Would a camera take a different photograph than what we can see with our eyes in Lessans' newly-ignited Sun example?

If not (i.e. if a camera could also photograph the Sun in real-time as soon as it is ignited), then how can an image form on the light-sensitive camera film when there is no light in contact with the camera film?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're thinking in terms of the afferent model again. Instead of thinking "objects reflect light"; think "light reflects objects." Maybe that will help you.

No, it won't help because as we've explained numerous times, this is incoherent. 'Reflect' means to bounce off and travel away in another direction. Objects don't bounce off and travel away from light. Light bounces off and travels away from objects.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the object is not there, there is no non-absorbed blue light that is traveling toward the photographic film because the light and the object are the opposite side of the coin. You can't have one without the other, although light energy is always traveling.

Why? Answer the question! What happens to the traveling blue light if the object ceases to exist while the light is traveling to the eye or camera? Why doesn't it keep on traveling towards it? Where does it go? Does the traveling blue light change direction? Does it cease to exist? Does it change frequency? What happens to it to prevent it from keeping on going as it was before?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This guy doesn't know the first thing about this discovery. He made a clinical diagnosis of me like on the first day I was there? Not only am I not his patient, he is going against normal protocol just because he is assuming that anyone who claims he has the answer to world peace must, in his mind, have a thought disorder. What he has done is extremely unprofessional. He's no different than any other person online who is making premature judgments.

How many professional psychologists have to tell you that you have a problem before you'll start to listen to them?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then why have you spent the last thousand pages arguing otherwise, and claiming that light has to be, and will be, at the retina for real-time vision to occur?

Light has to be at the retina but you are thinking in terms of distance, not the object/brightness/size optical range. If we can see an object (not an image), that means we are in the optical range of said object. Distance/time does not play a part in this account Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do we even have light-sensitive rods and cones in our eyes if we can see even when there is no light present at the eye to interact with them?

I see where you are confused. Light is at the eye, but that light that is at the eye is there because we see the object. That means the light has to be at the eye as a mirror image. Just because light only has to surround the object does not mean, in this account, that when the eyes are looking at said object, light isn't present at the retina. This is really tough.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Would a camera take a different photograph than what we can see with our eyes in Lessans' newly-ignited Sun example?

If not (i.e. if a camera could also photograph the Sun in real-time as soon as it is ignited), then how can an image form on the light-sensitive camera film when there is no light in contact with the camera film?

There is light at the film, just as there is light at the retina. If this account is true, it works for both. You are not understanding why efferent vision changes what is seen and why light is at the retina even though it has not traveled to Earth. Efferent vision is the exact opposite of afferent vision, which you are basing all of your conclusions on. That's why it seems impossible for real time vision to be plausible, but it is plausible if you understand the mechanism.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How many professional psychologists have to tell you that you have a problem before you'll start to listen to them?

You are playing some serious games with me Spacemonkey. If you don't care to talk to me, just keep doing what you're doing and this is what will happen.