A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think so thedoc. I gave the first chapter on a silver platter, and I don't think many people read it. If you did read it, then what questions do you have? All I get from you is that the book is a fantasy.

There have been many questions asked that you have failed to answer clearly if at all, the answer to those questions would answer many of those I might have raised, but since you seemed reluctant to answer anything, I didn't see the point of adding to the list.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's nothing more I can do with this group.

Of course not. Because we are asking the same questions and raising the same objections you've been faced with at every other forum you've ever been to. And you still have no rational response to offer. That will never change, no matter where you go.

If you leave now you will be doing so without having shown where Lessans supports his presuppositions about conscience, and without having shown how efferent vision is even a coherent and logically consistent possibility. You will have failed miserably once again, and it will have been no-one's fault but your own.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to answer you because you just did it again; you used the term non-discovery.

You never provided any alternative term for me to use. And that is not why you ignore my questions. You ignore my questions regardless of what terms I use. You're just looking for excuses to justify your continued dishonest evasion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you testing me Spacemonkey? You're ruining it for yourself. When I leave here the only choice you'll have is to buy the Mp3 or the book I compiled. I may sell his book, Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought, along with the Mp3 (same title) so people can read along with him. But these are limited editions, so you better get your copy now.

What on Earth makes you think I'd be interested in wasting my money on that? What makes you think any of it will sell?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I'm getting you upset which was my intention.

Then your 'knowledge' has failed you once again.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you do is keep repeating that Lessans doesn't have a discovery, but you've never inquired about anything or showed any curiosity. I am not sure why you're here.

Interesting, you do not dispute my statement of his first idea, only that I refered to it as a non-discovery, which is accurate if you consider the proof or evidence that was offered to support it. I'm here to see if you will ever explain the book in any further detail and make Lessans confused writing easier to comprehend, I could figure it out but only because I like working out puzzles and not because it was clearly written.

BTW, I have no intention at all of doing your job, of explaining this material, for you. So just so you know if you ask me to explain things to you, too bad, do it yourself. I'm not here to teach you what Lessans tried to say, even though I probably understand it far better then you could ever possably understand it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, the problem isn't just that you have no answer to the following points, but that you have firmly rejected all possible answers.

You say this light doesn't cease to exist, and doesn't stay stationary at the surface of the object. Does it then get absorbed? Not according to you. Does it bounce off and travel away? Not according to you. Does it teleport by instantaneously re-appearing at some other location, such as distant films and/or retinas? Not according to you.

You have thereby ruled out all possible answers, thereby making it impossible for your model to be correct.

You have rejected all possible answers here as well. Did this light at the film come into exitence there as newly existing light? Nope. Was it previously at the film and thereby stationary? Nope. Was it previously at some distance from the film and travelling towards it? Nope. Was it previously at some distance from the film but then gets to the film without travelling the intervening distance (i.e. by teleportation)? Nope.

Again, you have thereby ruled out all possible answers, thereby making it impossible for your model to be correct.

Bump.

Are you going to address this, peacegirl? Or are you going to weasel?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

my goal is to destroy peace on Earth

You are a very BAD person, Lady Shea!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you should be able to tell me what his first discovery is

As there is no first discovery, there is nothing to tell.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most of it is dialogue, so why are you telling me it's prose.

Isn't dialogue a variety of prose? It sure as hell ain't verse.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep bringing up optics? There is no mistake with optics. The only thing that changes is that the eyes are not a sense organ. The reason all fields of science have the model of sight wrong is because it's been accepted as fact that the brain interprets the images from light. It was an easy mistake to make.

Optics defines the the eyes as light sensors and explains vision in terms of that sensory detection of light. So if afferent sight is wrong, optics is wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump #97383

You will never answer these questions, because your non-model is incapable of providing any answers. Unfortunately you are too deluded and dishonest to ever be able to admit this, even to yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are a very BAD person, Lady Shea!

As there is no first discovery, there is nothing to tell.

Isn't dialogue a variety of prose? It sure as hell ain't verse.

How Punctuation Sets Apart Dialogue From Prose

Punctuation and Prose

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You will never answer these questions, because your non-model is incapable of providing any answers. Unfortunately you are too deluded and dishonest to ever be able to admit this, even to yourself.

If you give me one question at a time, I will answer, but not this long set of questions. I will repeat that this is a trial basis depending on whether you continue calling this a non-discovery. I can see that you're not understanding the concept of efferent vision, and why we are able to see the object instantly as a result. This is not inconsistent with optics. White light continues to bounce off of the object, and the remaining non-absorbed light is (P) reflected. Those photons are continually being replaced. The ONLY difference is that because our eyes are not sense organs, the brain does not interpret images from light. If Lessans is right, it follows that we are seeing the actual object in real time. This also means that the same light that allows us to see the object (the P reflected light), is also the same light that is at the film instantly. This is not magic. When you see efferently the photons intersect with the film/retina. There is no teleportation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you give me one question at a time, I will answer, but not this long set of questions.

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

[seebs]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that changes is that the eyes are not a sense organ. The reason all fields of science have the model of sight wrong is because it's been accepted as fact that the brain interprets the images from light. It was an easy mistake to make.

Yes, what with it fitting every piece of evidence ever provided.

So, the eyes aren't a sense organ, you say. And yet, they're structured exactly like a sense organ, they produce neural impulses in response to light, inducing such neural impulses creates the same experiences we have when light hits the eyes, they are affected by lenses just as though they were optics, defects in the lens create corresponding defects in sight...

The problem here is that you haven't offered any reason to believe that the eyes aren't a sense organ, and they sure seem to work like one.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will repeat that this is a trial basis depending on whether you continue calling this a non-discovery.

You haven't offered any alternative neutral term yet. And if you're not prepared to use a neutral term, then why should we?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

White light continues to bounce off of the object, and the remaining non-absorbed light is (P) reflected... the same light that allows us to see the object (the P reflected light), is also the same light that is at the film instantly... There is no teleportation.

This is contradictory. If this (P)reflected light was hitting the object at one moment, and then present at the distant camera film at the very next moment, then it has teleported. It has gotten from one point to another distant point instantly without travelling the intervening distance. That is the very definition of teleportation. It is what 'teleportation' means.

What you are describing is teleportation. It doesn't cease to be teleportation just because you declare it not to be. What in your mind distinguishes what you have here described from teleportation? What difference are you seeing between the two?

(Also, the white light is precisely what was hitting the object. If the same white light is also bouncing off, then nothing has been absorbed from that white light, and nothing remains (which is neither absorbed nor bouncing off) to be (P)reflected. Your claims aren't just factually wrong. They are incoherent.)

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true Vivisectus. I can't do more than I have already done. When I was a teenager I read his books and asked loads of questions. You didn't read the first chapter thoroughly enough. Can you point out what his observations were that prove man's will is not free? How many times do I have to say that he did not pull this knowledge out of a hat and make it a first premise. This has nothing to do with tautologies or modal fallacies. There's nothing more I can do with this group. I gave you the chapter and you have not asked one question since you refuted the idea that threats of blame and punishment contribute to the very thing these threats are trying to prevent.

The problem remains the same: the basis of his entire system boils down to "We cannot do anything but choose that which we prefer out of any given set of options", but "that which we prefer" really means "that which we end up choosing" - it is not defined in any different way.

As usual, you are unable to demonstrate that this is not the case, so you simply blame the audience. The fact remains that this is nothing more than the silly vanity-project of an eccentric.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There have been many questions asked that you have failed to answer clearly if at all, the answer to those questions would answer many of those I might have raised, but since you seemed reluctant to answer anything, I didn't see the point of adding to the list.

What you're saying is not true. That's how you want to see things. I've answered every question, but all the ridicule in between posts makes the thread very hard to connect the dots, so to speak. On top of that, people want me to discuss the book in a haphazard way, which I refuse to do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep bringing up optics? There is no mistake with optics. The only thing that changes is that the eyes are not a sense organ. The reason all fields of science have the model of sight wrong is because it's been accepted as fact that the brain interprets the images from light. It was an easy mistake to make.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Optics defines the the eyes as light sensors and explains vision in terms of that sensory detection of light. So if afferent sight is wrong, optics is wrong.

That's the only part that is being contested. Everything else in optics is consistent with efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

No, I already told you this. White light bounces off the surface (please don't tell me that it can't be white light because there's only the blue-wavelength light), but when we're looking directly at the object the (P) blue wavelength light appears at the film/retina due to the object's absorptive properties.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

Yes, what with it fitting every piece of evidence ever provided.

So, the eyes aren't a sense organ, you say. And yet, they're structured exactly like a sense organ, they produce neural impulses in response to light, inducing such neural impulses creates the same experiences we have when light hits the eyes, they are affected by lenses just as though they were optics, defects in the lens create corresponding defects in sight...

The problem here is that you haven't offered any reason to believe that the eyes aren't a sense organ, and they sure seem to work like one.

None of those things you mentioned is being disputed. Neural impulses in response to light do occur. There has to be a connection between light, the optic nerve, and the brain, what what is being disputed is that these impulses are being interpreted by the brain as an image. I am trying to offer an alternate model based on Lessans' claim that the eyes do not function the same way as the other senses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't offered any alternative neutral term yet. And if you're not prepared to use a neutral term, then why should we?

I did say "his premise". Regardless, I will not tolerate you using the term "non-discovery" if you want me to answer your posts. The ball is in your court.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

White light continues to bounce off of the object, and the remaining non-absorbed light is (P) reflected... the same light that allows us to see the object (the P reflected light), is also the same light that is at the film instantly... There is no teleportation.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is contradictory. If this (P)reflected light was hitting the object at one moment, and then present at the distant camera film at the very next moment, then it has teleported. It has gotten from one point to another distant point instantly without travelling the intervening distance. That is the very definition of teleportation. It is what 'teleportation' means.

What you are describing is teleportation. It doesn't cease to be teleportation just because you declare it not to be. What in your mind distinguishes what you have here described from teleportation? What difference are you seeing between the two?

Efferent vision. How many times do I have to say there is no travel time when the brain is looking outward, using the eyes as a window to see the external world. When the lens is focused on the object, we get an instant image on the film/retina, so how can this be teleportation?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

(Also, the white light is precisely what was hitting the object. If the same white light is also bouncing off, then nothing has been absorbed from that white light, and nothing remains (which is neither absorbed nor bouncing off) to be (P)reflected. Your claims aren't just factually wrong. They are incoherent.)

That's a fallacy. Just because the object has absorbed the non-blue wavelength light does not mean that the white light that bounces off of the object and (N) travels through space and time is leaving behind the absorbed wavelengths. In efferent vision, the non-absorbed blue wavelength light is there only when we're looking the object. It's not there if the lens of the eye or camera is not focused on the object. Therefore, optics had that part wrong. We cannot detect an image of a material substance from light alone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The problem remains the same: the basis of his entire system boils down to "We cannot do anything but choose that which we prefer out of any given set of options", but "that which we prefer" really means "that which we end up choosing" - it is not defined in any different way.

As usual, you are unable to demonstrate that this is not the case, so you simply blame the audience. The fact remains that this is nothing more than the silly vanity-project of an eccentric.

Vivisectus, we're in the thread that has to do with his second discovery. Your post is about his first discovery. Would you mind copy-pasting this post in the correct thread so it stays consistent? Thanks. I am also putting my foot down. If you don't have a relevant question but are just posting to bash Lessans, I'm going to ignore your post.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the only part that is being contested. Everything else in optics is consistent with efferent vision.

There is no (p) reflection in optics. There is just reflection that follows laws. There is no "focusing on" an object in optics, there is only focusing incoming light. There is no "mirror image" in optics allowing photons to be in two places at once...there is only traveling light. There is no "back to white light" on Earth in optics- there is light being absorbed, transmitted, refracted, and reflected by matter all over the place so some wavelengths are missing. There is no fading light in optics, there is traveling light that diverges from the starting point. In optics, light behaves the same whether there are any lenses or retinas focused on it...it doesn't do one thing when it is being looked at and different things when not.

Optics can predict and determine where a photon would be just before it is absorbed by camera film, and just after it has encountered a leaf but was not absorbed.

Just because the object has absorbed the non-blue wavelength light does not mean that the white light that bounces off of the object and (N) travels through space and time is leaving behind the absorbed wavelengths.

This mess is not found anywhere in optics. Absorbed light no longer exists as light. It has been absorbed and transformed to some other energy. Wavelengths of light that have been absorbed cannot also be reflected

You can't just claim the legitimacy of optics for your own, then proceed to shred it apart. Nothing you have said is consistent at all with optics...one of the best studied and well supported branches of science.

[LadyShea]

Cameras don't have brains to look out. So what is doing the instant seeing in photography?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, we're in the thread that has to do with his second discovery. Your post is about his first discovery. Would you mind copy-pasting this post in the correct thread so it stays consistent? Thanks. I am also putting my foot down. If you don't have a relevant question but are just posting to bash Lessans, I'm going to ignore your post.

You are the one responding to the tautology problem specifically, and not your inability to answer Shea and Spacemonkeys questions. Without actually either solving it or admitting that it is a mistake - which is quite dishonourable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are the one responding to the tautology problem specifically, and not your inability to answer Shea and Spacemonkeys questions. Without actually either solving it or admitting that it is a mistake - which is quite dishonourable.

It's dishonorable of you to have a judgment before verdict. The verdict is not in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Cameras don't have brains to look out. So what is doing the instant seeing in photography?

LadyShea, you do not understand this concept. I have said over and over again that the same light that the eyes use to see the object is the same exact light that is at the film (instantly) when the lens of a camera is focused on the object. The only difference is that the brain, looking through the eyes, uses that light to see the actual object in real time, and the film takes a photograph of the actual object in real time.