A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It has been explained to you in great detail how and why many successful technologies could not function if your "model" of sight were correct. It has also been explained to you in great detail how and why your "model" necessarily violates quite a lot of physical laws.

You cannot claim ignorance. That you cannot (or more to the point, will not) understand is no excuse.

You're basically acting like a three-year-old; you're metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Does not! Does not! Does not!".

I'm not claiming ignorance. I just don't see the conflict this causes. What successful technologies could not function? GPS systems would still work; fiber optics would still work; improved telescopes and cameras would still work; microwave ovens would still work, even technologies that don't need a lens would still work. Seeing in real time also does not mean the whole sky would look white because of too much light. So what are you talking about TLR? As far as physics, what laws are being violated? Light still travels at a finite speed. We can still detect full spectrum light.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This is why people keep calling you a liar.

I really don't see where lying enters into this. I don't lie, and I never have. And I'm not being willfully ignorant either.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not claiming ignorance. I just don't see the conflict this causes. What successful technologies could not function? GPS systems would still work; fiber optics would still work; improved telescopes and cameras would still work; microwave ovens would still work, even technologies that don't need a lens would still work. Seeing in real time also does not mean the whole sky would look white because of too much light. So what are you talking about TLR? As far as physics, what laws are being violated? Light still travels at a finite speed. We can still detect full spectrum light.

It has been explained to you many, many times. Your entire refutation is "Does not!" You can't even explain why not.

Real time seeing is completely incompatible with relativity and causality, upon which working technologies rely. Your not understanding how and why this is is due to your simply ignoring the explanations and evidence because of your emotional attachment to Lessans ideas. There really is no other explanation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It has been explained to you many, many times. Your entire refutation is "Does not!" You can't even explain why not.

I've explained this alternate model as best I can. I do not just say "Does not!" The non-absorbed wavelengths allow us to see external reality in real time; the light does not travel through space and time where we will see a past event as it strikes a camera, telescope, or retina.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Real time seeing is completely incompatible with relativity and causality, upon which working technologies rely. Your not understanding how and why this is is either due to your simply ignoring the explanations and evidence because of your emotional attachment to Lessans ideas. There really is no other explanation.

If that's what you think after all this time, then just move on. It's really okay.

[LadyShea]

I am assuming relativity is correct because the technologies that rely on relativity being correct actually work, and every experiment regarding relativity supports it being accurate. Many scientists have tried to disprove it...imagine being the one who overturns such a strong theory!...but have been unable to.

That's why this deal with the neutrinos seemingly traveling faster than light speed has caused such a stir. Scientists everywhere are trying to replicate the results. The Theory of Relativity may have to be changed, should these results be replicable and no errors found (that's a huge maybe, but certainly it exists)

My mind is open to new and solid evidence. My mind is not open to every crackpot with an unsupported idea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am assuming relativity is correct because the technologies that rely on relativity being correct actually work, and every experiment regarding relativity supports it being accurate. Many scientists have tried to disprove it...imagine being the one who overturns such a strong theory!...but have been unable to.

That's why this deal with the neutrinos seemingly traveling faster than light speed has caused such a stir. Scientists everywhere are trying to replicate the results. The Theory of Relativity may have to be changed, should these results be replicable and no errors found (that's a huge maybe, but certainly it exists)

I don't see where relativity contradicts these observations. You are way too premature LadyShea in your effort to defend yourself. I am not here to ruin you worldview, so there's no need for protection.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see you are presupposing that relativity is correct, just as you are presupposing that man has five senses. If you can't keep an open mind LadyShea, there's no point.

Relativity and 'five senses' are accepted as true, because they are supported by all the observations, tests, and empherical data thus far and there has been nothing 'real' that contradicts them. Lessans made claims about vision that contradict accepted and proven science, therefore Lessans is incorrect and has provided nothing to support his claims. He has claimed to have made observations but has provided no details or evidence that he has done so. An 'open mind' considers all the data that is available and supported, unsupported claims should be considered but without evidence to support them, they will be rejected till proof is provided. In this case the prevailing data must be shown to be wrong and not just asserted as such. Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof and Lessans/Peacegirl have provided nothing that can be considered as proof in the real world.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where relativity contradicts these observations.

Perhaps because you have no idea what relativity is.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where relativity contradicts these observations.

The empirical observation regarding the moons of Jupiter (and the moons of other planets, and other planets themselves) contradicts real time seeing. The landing of spacecraft on Mars contradicts real time seeing. The creation of the Hubble Deep Field images contradicts the claim that we don't see images from light alone.

If you don't understand, then you are either unable or unwilling to be objective and look at the evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are way too premature LadyShea in your effort to defend yourself. I am not here to ruin you worldview, so there's no need for protection.

LOL. I am not defending or protecting myself. What ludicrous projection.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quit weaseling and I'll stop calling you on it.

And what part of "the eyes are a sense organ" implies, states, or predicts "dogs should be able to recognize human faces from pictures". You are avoiding answering the question...that's weaseling.

I asked you this before and you have always avoided it. But, if the eyes are not a sense organ, and we see efferently, why can some mammals recognize humans from pictures and others can't? How does your model explain the difference?

The standard model explains differences like this on the processing and interpretation of the visual signals in the brain, as well as sensory preference and priority differences between species. There is nothing weird or unexplained here and it doesn't matter one whit to the standard model of vision whether dogs can or can't recognize their masters from pictures.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see you are presupposing that relativity is correct

No one is "presupposing" anything about relativity. The irony here is that relativity is a perfect example of what Lessans claimed to have would actually look like: a mathematical truth. You'll notice that Einstein, Lorentz, and others who contributed actually used mathematics, for one thing.

Relativity occupies roughly the same place on a scale of "how certain we are this is true" as the conservation of energy, which is above theory, and very, very far beyond hypothesis. Which is to say, we're pretty fucking certain. If you want to challenge, disprove, displace, or call into question relativity, you'll probably want to pick up on your math, 'cause that's the only way to do it, not by "astutely observing" anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The empirical observation regarding the moons of Jupiter (and the moons of other planets, and other planets themselves) contradicts real time seeing. The landing of spacecraft on Mars contradicts real time seeing. The creation of the Hubble Deep Field images contradicts the claim that we don't see images from light alone.

If you don't understand, then you are either unable or unwilling to be objective and look at the evidence.

Appearances are not always what they seem to be.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are way too premature LadyShea in your effort to defend yourself. I am not here to ruin you worldview, so there's no need for protection.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL. I am not defending or protecting myself. What ludicrous projection.

LadyShea, you will never admit to the fact that science has made an error, so there's no point in discussing this any further.

[LadyShea]

you will never admit to the fact that science has made an error

That's a fact in your mind only. I see no evidence that there has been an error regarding optics. If science has made an error, I look forward to it being found and corrected.

I love science because of the trial and error aspect, because of the work involved in the search, because of the constant attempts to dispute, disprove, and refine...not despite them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

No one is "presupposing" anything about relativity. The irony here is that relativity is a perfect example of what Lessans claimed to have would actually look like: a mathematical truth. You'll notice that Einstein, Lorentz, and others who contributed actually used mathematics, for one thing.

Relativity occupies roughly the same place on a scale of "how certain we are this is true" as the conservation of energy, which is above theory, and very, very far beyond hypothesis. Which is to say, we're pretty fucking certain. If you want to challenge, disprove, displace, or call into question relativity, you'll probably want to pick up on your math, 'cause that's the only way to do it, not by "astutely observing" anything.

I'm not disputing relativity, sorry; I am disputing SR, if for it to be true, real time seeing must be untrue.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not disputing relativity, sorry; I am disputing SR, if for it to be true, real time seeing must be untrue.

You aren't disputing relativity but you are disputing special relativity? So are you or aren't you disputing it?

Yes, for relativity to be true, instantaneous, real time seeing cannot be true. They are not compatible at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's a fact in your mind only. I see no evidence that there has been an error regarding optics. If science has made an error, I look forward to it being found and corrected.

I love science because of the trial and error aspect, because of the work involved in the search, because of the constant attempts to dispute, disprove, and refine...not despite them.

Right, if science finds that Lessans was right, you'll be all for it, just like you'll be all for the fact that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction if neuroscience finds it, not Lessans. You don't think Lessans worked? He was always reading, thinking, analyzing, correcting, fine tuning, until he got it right. He was way ahead of his time which is why people are having such a hard time.

[seebs]

GPS systems rely on measuring the time it takes light to travel different distances.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't think Lessans worked? He was always reading, thinking, analyzing, correcting, fine tuning, until he got it right. He was way ahead of his time which is why people are having such a hard time.

He didn't do science, yet claimed to have made a scientific discovery. He didn't have anyone else critique his work, so would have no way of knowing if he made mistakes.

He made enormous claims regarding physics and biology, using the methods of philosophy, not the methodology of science. Lessans didn't record data, or gather data, or run a single test.

Philosophy has it's place in science, but it can't replace empirical data.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quit weaseling and I'll stop calling you on it.

And what part of "the eyes are a sense organ" implies, states, or predicts "dogs should be able to recognize human faces from pictures". You are avoiding answering the question...that's weaseling.

You can say I'm weaseling, but I don't like when you use it as a noun.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I asked you this before and you have always avoided it. But, if the eyes are not a sense organ, and we see efferently, why can some mammals recognize humans from pictures and others can't? How does your model explain the difference?

Which mammals recognize humans from pictures other than other humans?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The standard model explains differences like this on the processing and interpretation of the visual signals in the brain, as well as sensory preference and priority differences between species. There is nothing weird or unexplained here and it doesn't matter one whit to the standard model of vision whether dogs can or can't recognize their masters from pictures.

It actually does matter. If all the other senses work when the stimuli is received, why don't the eyes work in the same way? Dogs should be able to recognize their masters from pictures alone if the eyes are a sense organ, but they don't. Animals immediately react to the smell of their owner, and they immediately recognize the sound of their owner's voice, but they can't recognize their owner's picture without the help of their other senses. There's no point in going over this again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He didn't do science, yet claimed to have made a scientific discovery. He didn't have anyone else critique his work, so would have no way of knowing if he made mistakes.

He made enormous claims regarding physics and biology, using the methods of philosophy, not the methodology of science. Lessans didn't record data, or gather data, or run a single test.

Philosophy has it's place in science, but it can't replace empirical data.

LadyShea, you are becoming dogmatic again. You are so sure he doesn't have anything of value. Hearing you say this is humorous to me. You keep talking about empirical data as if this is the only methodology that can be used to uncover a truth. I have also said that empiricism will be the ultimate judge because the proof of the pudding is in the eating. LOL You keep using the fact that because he wasn't a scientist in the field, that it's impossible for him to have discovered anything. And you say you're an open minded person? I already told you that no one is preventing you from rejecting his claims if you don't believe they are plausible.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually does matter. If all the other senses work when the stimuli is received, why don't the eyes work in the same way? Dogs should be able to recognize their masters from pictures alone if the eyes are a sense organ, but they don't. Animals immediately react to the smell of their owner, and they immediately recognize the sound of their owner's voice, but they can't recognize their owner's picture without the help of their other senses. There's no point in going over this again.

I have 2 young dogs and an elderly dog. The young ones need to be walked much more than the elderly one. Normally, I'll walk around the block with the youngsters and leave oldest inside. He's deaf, just about 100% deaf. He can't really smell through the 2 doors, at least not to detect me and the others, and there's a decent chance I'm downwind of him.

Regardless, when he sees me walking back from around the block he reacts. He can't hear me, he can't smell or feel me, and it's really unlikely that he's tasting me, but he still reacts.

Ever use a laser pointer on cats or dogs? The laser is a bright spot of light, nothing more or less, and animals react to it. Lessans' ideas are so flawed that it can't accurately explain the most basic of observations.

No one is going to believe Lessans because his ideas defy observed reality. Period. Your continued defense of his ideas about vision are a testament to your dysfunction.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I asked you this before and you have always avoided it. But, if the eyes are not a sense organ, and we see efferently, why can some mammals recognize humans from pictures and others can't? How does your model explain the difference?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Which mammals recognize humans from pictures other than other humans?

Chimpanzees can identify familiar humans from even line drawings as well as photographs. Dolphins recognize individual humans and are known to respond to televised people giving commands and hand signals the first time they are exposed to television (no other animal has demonstrated that first time response)

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The standard model explains differences like this via the processing and interpretation of the visual signals in the brain, as well as sensory preference and priority differences between species. There is nothing weird or unexplained here and it doesn't matter one whit to the standard model of vision whether dogs can or can't recognize their masters from pictures.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually does matter. If all the other senses work when the stimuli is received, why don't the eyes work in the same way?

They do work the same way. However dogs prefer their stronger and more useful senses of smell and hearing. Humans are much more visually dependent than dogs are. That's what I meant when I said "sensory preferences and priorities differences between species"

Whether dogs recognize photographs is an interesting question about non-human cognition and abilities. However, it doesn't matter at all to the standard model of sight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dogs should be able to recognize their masters from pictures alone if the eyes are a sense organ, but they don't.

This is a completely made up "should". Nothing in optics, neuroscience, anatomy, or any other vision related field says anything remotely like "Dogs should be able to recognize their masters from pictures alone". If you think I am wrong, find me any literature, citation, or copy pasted link that indicates any relevant field of science predicts or states that this "should" be the case.

If you cannot do so, then I will stand on my belief that Lessans pulled that straight out of his ass.

[seebs]

People don't consistently react to two-dimensional images in the same ways the first times they encounter them, either.

I don't see it as all that surprising. Animals don't necessarily have the same cognitive map of the world that we do. A cat might consider a two-dimensional picture to be Obviously Not Real, and not even try to figure out what it's showing. A dog might not recognize a person who doesn't smell like anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

GPS systems rely on measuring the time it takes light to travel different distances.

You are the most confused of all. This knowledge has nothing to do with measuring the time it takes for light to travel different distances. Do you take naps throughout these discussions because you're missing whole blocks of conversation that addressed this very thing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Chimpanzees can identify familiar humans from even line drawings as well as photographs. Dolphins recognize individual humans and are known to respond to televised people giving commands and hand signals the first time they are exposed to television (no other animal has demonstrated that first time response)

I can understand why chimpanzees would recognize humans because they know more language and probably can distinguish these differences in features. Dolphins can recognize individual humans? How interesting.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The standard model explains differences like this via the processing and interpretation of the visual signals in the brain, as well as sensory preference and priority differences between species. There is nothing weird or unexplained here and it doesn't matter one whit to the standard model of vision whether dogs can or can't recognize their masters from pictures.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually does matter. If all the other senses work when the stimuli is received, why don't the eyes work in the same way?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They do work the same way. Whether dogs recognize photographs is an interesting question about non-human cognition and abilities. However, it doesn't matter at all to the standard model of sight.

Of course it does. The eyes should work like a sense organ, which means that something goes in and there is a reaction. In all the other senses, that's how it works. WHY NOT THE EYES?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dogs should be able to recognize their masters from pictures alone if the eyes are a sense organ, but they don't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is a completely made up "should". Nothing in optics, neuroscience, anatomy, or any other vision related field says anything remotely like "Dogs should be able to recognize their masters from pictures alone".

You're missing the whole point. if the eyes are a sense organ, dogs SHOULD be able to recognize their master just like they recognize their master from their other senses. Don't you see that stimuli is coming into their noses and their ears, which is why they can recognize? Don't you understand that no one has claimed that the eyes are not a sense organ, so it is rather obvious that no one in these fields would even bring this up.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you think I am wrong, find me any literature, citation, or copy pasted link that indicates any relevant field of science predicts or states that this "should" be the case.

If you cannot do so, then I will stand on my belief that Lessans pulled that straight out of his ass.

You are becoming way too aggressive for my taste. Before we talk again, you really need to take a chill pill.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are the most confused of all. This knowledge has nothing to do with measuring the time it takes for light to travel different distances. Do you take naps throughout these discussions because you're missing whole blocks of conversation that addressed this very thing?

What you're good for -- and all you are good for, or ever will be good for -- is serving as the most amazing exemplar of ignorance, arrogance and dishonesty rolled up into one disgusting, fetid ball of mindless rhetorical BS.

Yes, it DOES have EVERYTHING to do with measuring the time it takes light to travel different distances, because that is why GPS systems work, why we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time, as is easily proven, and why NASA uses delayed time seeing as factored in by the speed-of-light delay to send spacecraft to Mars. If they used real-time seeing, they'd miss their targets by huge margins, as, just like everything else, has been repeatedly explained to you. In one ear and out the other! After all, there ain't much between them ears of yours!

I see now that you, the weasel, are shifting back to saying that the theory of relativity is wrong after all, after spending hundreds of pages maintaining that the theory of relativity was compatible with your insane father's demented ravings. And now you came up with another gem: You are not disputing the theory of relativity, only SR! Erm, the theory of relativity we are talking about IS SR! SR stands for "special relativity," as in, "the theory of special relativity.