#14451  
Old 02-18-2012, 07:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
peavegirl, what happens if my observation is different from Lessans?
Nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #14452  
Old 02-18-2012, 07:54 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
peavegirl, what happens if my observation is different from Lessans?
Nothing.
I take it that this also goes for anyone else except for you or Lessans?
Reply With Quote
  #14453  
Old 02-18-2012, 07:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The light is at everyone's retina at once. There's not a shortage of light, but distance does matter. If one person is closer to something that he's looking at than someone else, it will show up differently on his retina than someone who is further away.
Why should distance matter. If the light which allows us to see an object is instantly at the film/retina without regard to how far away the object is from the film/retina why would someone closer to the object have different visual experience than someone who is further away?
Because the visual cortex is able to interpret what the eyes are seeing. Once again, this does not mean that light does not travel at a high rate of speed; just that light does not cause sight; it is a condition of sight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's true, the blue wavelength light is allowing us to see the object due to the object absorbing the non-blue wavelength light, but as soon as that blue wavelength light fades out (due to dispersion), we get white light. The blue wavelength light doesn't bounce so it doesn't travel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Dispersion is a function of light that is traveling. If the blue wavelength light does not travel, why and how does it get dispersed?

You keep claiming that this blue wavelength light does not travel yet you persist in describing its behavior by using terms that only apply to light that is traveling. This is very strange.
It's really not strange if you see this in the perspective of the efferent model. The blue light is present when we look at the object. That's when we see it, but that doesn't mean that this light is not being replaced by new photons that are constantly in motion. As light bounces off the object, some light gets absorbed and some doesn't which allows us to distinguish substance in the external world. Due to the fact that light is in constant motion doesn't change the fact that the blue wavelength light can only be present at the film/retina if the object is present. Moreover, we will see that object in direct proportion to the inverse square law of optics, so the farther away the object is from the film/retina due to the dispersion of light, the smaller the object will appear until it can no longer be seen or photographed at all.

Last edited by peacegirl; 02-18-2012 at 08:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14454  
Old 02-18-2012, 08:04 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
peavegirl, what happens if my observation is different from Lessans?
Nothing.
I take it that this also goes for anyone else except for you or Lessans?
After today I'm not going to respond to anyone who doesn't have a direct and pertinent question regarding the principles in this book. Using my energy to answer people who are here for one reason only, which is to make fun of me, is a waste of my valuable time.
Reply With Quote
  #14455  
Old 02-18-2012, 08:10 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
peavegirl, what happens if my observation is different from Lessans?
Nothing.
I take it that this also goes for anyone else except for you or Lessans?
After today I'm not going to respond to anyone who doesn't have a direct and pertinent question regarding the principles in this book. Using my energy to answer people who are here for one reason only, which is to make fun of me, is a waste of my valuable time.
I'll take that as a yes, peavegirl.

BTW, nobody here thinks the principles of Lessans book are pertinent to anything but mental illness or deception. A sane person would know this by now.

People are here for the car wreck that is your insanity.

Get help peavegirl.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-20-2012)
  #14456  
Old 02-18-2012, 08:12 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
And there are no such things as white photons.
You sir, are a racist.
I agree, some of my best friends are 'white photons'.
Reply With Quote
  #14457  
Old 02-18-2012, 08:19 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
peavegirl, what happens if my observation is different from Lessans?
Nothing.
I take it that this also goes for anyone else except for you or Lessans?
After today I'm not going to respond to anyone who doesn't have a direct and pertinent question regarding the principles in this book. Using my energy to answer people who are here for one reason only, which is to make fun of me, is a waste of my valuable time.
I'll take that as a yes, peavegirl.

BTW, nobody here thinks the principles of Lessans book are pertinent to anything but mental illness or deception. A sane person would know this by now.

People are here for the car wreck that is your insanity.

Get help peavegirl.
I'm here for the hunting.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #14458  
Old 02-18-2012, 08:22 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The light is at everyone's retina at once. There's not a shortage of light, but distance does matter. If one person is closer to something that he's looking at than someone else, it will show up differently on his retina than someone who is further away.
Why should distance matter. If the light which allows us to see an object is instantly at the film/retina without regard to how far away the object is from the film/retina why would someone closer to the object have different visual experience than someone who is further away?
Because the visual cortex is able to interpret what the eyes are seeing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's true, the blue wavelength light is allowing us to see the object due to the object absorbing the non-blue wavelength light, but as soon as that blue wavelength light fades out (due to dispersion), we get white light. The blue wavelength light doesn't bounce so it doesn't travel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Dispersion is a function of light that is traveling. If the blue wavelength light does not travel, why and how does it get dispersed?

You keep claiming that this blue wavelength light does not travel yet you persist in describing its behavior by using terms that only apply to light that is traveling. This is very strange.
It's really not strange if you see this in the perspective of the efferent model. The blue light is present when we look at the object. That's when we see it, but that doesn't mean that this light is not being replaced by new photons that are constantly in motion. As light bounces off the object, some light gets absorbed and some doesn't which allows us to distinguish substance in the external world. Due to the fact that light is in constant motion doesn't change the fact that the blue wavelength light can only be present at the film/retina if the object is present. Moreover, we will see that object in direct proportion to the inverse square law of optics, so the farther away the object is from the film/retina due to the dispersion of light, the smaller the object will appear until it can no longer be seen or photographed at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
After today I'm not going to respond to anyone who doesn't have a direct and pertinent question regarding the principles in this book. Using my energy to answer people who are here for one reason only, which is to make fun of me, is a waste of my valuable time.
After today I may have to stop asking pertinent questions if you are just going to keep answering them with calorie and content free word salad.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #14459  
Old 02-18-2012, 08:27 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because the visual cortex is able to interpret what the eyes are seeing.
But from the efferent model of vision it is the brain that looks out through the eyes and the visual cortex is part of the brain, so the visual cortex is looking out through the eyes. The visual cortex is seeing, not the eyes.

That the visual cortex is intrepreting what the eyes see is according to the afferent model of vision. Either you are mixed up or you are admitting that the afferent model is the correct one.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-18-2012)
  #14460  
Old 02-18-2012, 08:30 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
is a waste of my valuable time.

Who is paying you? which is the only thing that could make your time of any value at all.
Reply With Quote
  #14461  
Old 02-18-2012, 08:36 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
After today I may have to stop asking pertinent questions if you are just going to keep answering them with calorie and content free word salad.

It actually becomes palatable with the right dressing. A delicate mix of incredulity and nonsense, with a garnish of garish humor.

In fact I believe a healthy dose of fiber would help to relieve Peacegirl of certain material that is troubeling her.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-18-2012)
  #14462  
Old 02-18-2012, 08:50 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
peavegirl, what happens if my observation is different from Lessans?
Nothing.
I take it that this also goes for anyone else except for you or Lessans?
After today I'm not going to respond to anyone who doesn't have a direct and pertinent question regarding the principles in this book. Using my energy to answer people who are here for one reason only, which is to make fun of me, is a waste of my valuable time.
I'll take that as a yes, peavegirl.

BTW, nobody here thinks the principles of Lessans book are pertinent to anything but mental illness or deception. A sane person would know this by now.

People are here for the car wreck that is your insanity.

Get help peavegirl.
If that's why people are here it's very unfortunate, because this knowledge is genuine. What more can I say NA? It's not up to me what people take from this knowledge. All I can do is present it to the best of my ability, which is what I'm doing.
Reply With Quote
  #14463  
Old 02-18-2012, 08:52 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The light is at everyone's retina at once. There's not a shortage of light, but distance does matter. If one person is closer to something that he's looking at than someone else, it will show up differently on his retina than someone who is further away.
Why should distance matter. If the light which allows us to see an object is instantly at the film/retina without regard to how far away the object is from the film/retina why would someone closer to the object have different visual experience than someone who is further away?
Because the visual cortex is able to interpret what the eyes are seeing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's true, the blue wavelength light is allowing us to see the object due to the object absorbing the non-blue wavelength light, but as soon as that blue wavelength light fades out (due to dispersion), we get white light. The blue wavelength light doesn't bounce so it doesn't travel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Dispersion is a function of light that is traveling. If the blue wavelength light does not travel, why and how does it get dispersed?

You keep claiming that this blue wavelength light does not travel yet you persist in describing its behavior by using terms that only apply to light that is traveling. This is very strange.
It's really not strange if you see this in the perspective of the efferent model. The blue light is present when we look at the object. That's when we see it, but that doesn't mean that this light is not being replaced by new photons that are constantly in motion. As light bounces off the object, some light gets absorbed and some doesn't which allows us to distinguish substance in the external world. Due to the fact that light is in constant motion doesn't change the fact that the blue wavelength light can only be present at the film/retina if the object is present. Moreover, we will see that object in direct proportion to the inverse square law of optics, so the farther away the object is from the film/retina due to the dispersion of light, the smaller the object will appear until it can no longer be seen or photographed at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
After today I'm not going to respond to anyone who doesn't have a direct and pertinent question regarding the principles in this book. Using my energy to answer people who are here for one reason only, which is to make fun of me, is a waste of my valuable time.
After today I may have to stop asking pertinent questions if you are just going to keep answering them with calorie and content free word salad.
It may be calorie free, but it's not content free. You have the best of both worlds. :D
Reply With Quote
  #14464  
Old 02-18-2012, 09:00 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What more can I say NA? It's not up to me what people take from this knowledge. All I can do is present it to the best of my ability, which is what I'm doing.
I may be the only one here that agrees with you. You are presenting Lessans to the best of your ability. Almost ten years and many tens of thousands of posts later, on many forums, and you have nothing to show for it. A sane person would understand that the problem is all theirs and would be able to step back from it all and take a critical look at what they were doing. They would ask, 'Could it be the content, could it be the presentation, could it all be wrong?'

But you are not sane peavegirl.

Get help.
Reply With Quote
  #14465  
Old 02-18-2012, 09:22 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What more can I say NA? It's not up to me what people take from this knowledge. All I can do is present it to the best of my ability, which is what I'm doing.
I may be the only one here that agrees with you. You are presenting Lessans to the best of your ability. Almost ten years and many tens of thousands of posts later, on many forums, and you have nothing to show for it.
That's a misconception. Each forum had something to offer, but this book was never thoroughly analyzed on any of them. They either were strictly moderated and the thread was shut down, or people were so mean that even when I was invited to have my own sub-forum, I wouldn't do it because of the name calling. I even think it was more vitriolic than this thread, if that's possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
A sane person would understand that the problem is all theirs and would be able to step back from it all and take a critical look at what they were doing. They would ask, 'Could it be the content, could it be the presentation, could it all be wrong?'
I have stepped back and taken a look and what I see is that the method I'm using is wrong. I finally have to admit that, although going online was not a complete waste of time. It's taken me a long time to realize this because I didn't recognize immediately that no matter what forum I'm on, it's not, and never will be, the right venue for presenting a discovery of this magnitude.
Reply With Quote
  #14466  
Old 02-18-2012, 09:38 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What more can I say NA? It's not up to me what people take from this knowledge. All I can do is present it to the best of my ability, which is what I'm doing.
I may be the only one here that agrees with you. You are presenting Lessans to the best of your ability. Almost ten years and many tens of thousands of posts later, on many forums, and you have nothing to show for it.
That's a misconception. Each forum had something to offer, but this book was never thoroughly analyzed on any of them. They either were strictly moderated and the thread was shut down, or people were so mean that even when I was invited to have my own sub-forum, I wouldn't do it because of the name calling. I even think it was more vitriolic than this thread, if that's possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
A sane person would understand that the problem is all theirs and would be able to step back from it all and take a critical look at what they were doing. They would ask, 'Could it be the content, could it be the presentation, could it all be wrong?'
I have stepped back and taken a look and what I see is that the method I'm using is wrong. I finally have to admit that, although going online was not a complete waste of time. It's taken me a long time to realize this because I didn't recognize immediately that no matter what forum I'm on, it's not, and never will be, the right venue for presenting a discovery of this magnitude.
An internet forum is not the right venue for presenting a discovery of any magnitude. It's just a place where all kinds of people from all walks of life may come and go and comment in passing or stop a while and do what they will. At best you might sell some books, but from what I gather that's been a complete failure for you as well.

But you need to do more than step back and evaluate your use of forums. You need to have your sanity evaluated. You need to get help peavegirl. Otherwise you will waste the rest of your life on this nonsense. I know it is your life to waste but it is a waste still the same. You could be spending your time writing fourth grade material, which you seem particularly attuned to and help some kid be safe. That would be a far greater contribution than trying to get people interested in Lessans folly.
Reply With Quote
  #14467  
Old 02-18-2012, 10:08 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What more can I say NA? It's not up to me what people take from this knowledge. All I can do is present it to the best of my ability, which is what I'm doing.
I may be the only one here that agrees with you. You are presenting Lessans to the best of your ability. Almost ten years and many tens of thousands of posts later, on many forums, and you have nothing to show for it.
That's a misconception. Each forum had something to offer, but this book was never thoroughly analyzed on any of them. They either were strictly moderated and the thread was shut down, or people were so mean that even when I was invited to have my own sub-forum, I wouldn't do it because of the name calling. I even think it was more vitriolic than this thread, if that's possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
A sane person would understand that the problem is all theirs and would be able to step back from it all and take a critical look at what they were doing. They would ask, 'Could it be the content, could it be the presentation, could it all be wrong?'
I have stepped back and taken a look and what I see is that the method I'm using is wrong. I finally have to admit that, although going online was not a complete waste of time. It's taken me a long time to realize this because I didn't recognize immediately that no matter what forum I'm on, it's not, and never will be, the right venue for presenting a discovery of this magnitude.
An internet forum is not the right venue for presenting a discovery of any magnitude. It's just a place where all kinds of people from all walks of life may come and go and comment in passing or stop a while and do what they will. At best you might sell some books, but from what I gather that's been a complete failure for you as well.
You may have been here awhile but you obviously haven't been listening. I have not marketed this book. Very few people know about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
But you need to do more than step back and evaluate your use of forums. You need to have your sanity evaluated. You need to get help peavegirl. Otherwise you will waste the rest of your life on this nonsense. I know it is your life to waste but it is a waste still the same. You could be spending your time writing fourth grade material, which you seem particularly attuned to and help some kid be safe. That would be a far greater contribution than trying to get people interested in Lessans folly.
Don't you see that my entire See-More Safety program is an outgrowth of this knowledge? I would never work on one project and leave the other behind; especially since this discovery is where my safety program originated. It's true that helping children to stay safe is a worthy goal in anyone's eyes, and it would be an easier contribution to make because nobody would be fighting me tooth and nail, but this goal is just as important of a contribution even if I don't see the final result in my lifetime.
Reply With Quote
  #14468  
Old 02-18-2012, 11:25 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Don't you see that my entire See-More Safety program is an outgrowth of this knowledge? I would never work on one project and leave the other behind; especially since this discovery is where my safety program originated. It's true that helping children to stay safe is a worthy goal in anyone's eyes, and it would be an easier contribution to make because nobody would be fighting me tooth and nail, but this goal is just as important of a contribution even if I don't see the final result in my lifetime.
I think that your desire to help people is innate and has nothing to do with Lessans. And by your own admission, Lessans has been an impediment. Do yourself a big favor and forget about Lessans and just help people instead of fighting a battle you will never win.
Reply With Quote
  #14469  
Old 02-19-2012, 01:14 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Don't you see that my entire See-More Safety program is an outgrowth of this knowledge? I would never work on one project and leave the other behind; especially since this discovery is where my safety program originated. It's true that helping children to stay safe is a worthy goal in anyone's eyes, and it would be an easier contribution to make because nobody would be fighting me tooth and nail, but this goal is just as important of a contribution even if I don't see the final result in my lifetime.
I think that your desire to help people is innate and has nothing to do with Lessans. And by your own admission, Lessans has been an impediment. Do yourself a big favor and forget about Lessans and just help people instead of fighting a battle you will never win.
You have no idea what you're talking about NA. It's really sad that after all I've explained to you, you come back like a bot with the same shtick. I'm really on the verge of putting you on ignore, which I'm sure you could care less. That makes it easier for me. I'm just warning you so you'll know why I'm not answering you anymore. To remind you, after today if you have no pertinent questions related to the book, I'm skipping over your posts, and if they get on my nerves long enough, I'm sending you to ignore island with all the others who didn't take my warnings seriously. :(
Reply With Quote
  #14470  
Old 02-19-2012, 01:17 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Have you thought up something about the moons of Jupiter yet?
Reply With Quote
  #14471  
Old 02-19-2012, 01:37 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Have you thought up something about the moons of Jupiter yet?
I am not required to figure out what could be causing the apparent time difference. All I am required to do is prove that the eyes are efferent. If it takes more empirical evidence to prove that Lessans was not wrong, then so be it.
Reply With Quote
  #14472  
Old 02-19-2012, 01:54 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All I am required to do is prove that the eyes are efferent.
Something you have not even come close to accomplishing.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #14473  
Old 02-19-2012, 02:01 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm sending you to ignore island with all the others who didn't take my warnings seriously.

Will you stop that, it's getting crowed over here, and the fishing isn't very good.
Reply With Quote
  #14474  
Old 02-19-2012, 12:15 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All I am required to do is prove that the eyes are efferent.
Something you have not even come close to accomplishing.
The most I can do is present Lessans' findings. If nothing more, I hope I planted a seed. I can't do anything other than explain this alternate model of sight in the hope that people will take it seriously and to question whether science may have made a fundamental error. I've said all along that more empirical testing will be necessary for proof to be established.
Reply With Quote
  #14475  
Old 02-19-2012, 03:05 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Have you thought up something about the moons of Jupiter yet?
I am not required to figure out what could be causing the apparent time difference. All I am required to do is prove that the eyes are efferent. If it takes more empirical evidence to prove that Lessans was not wrong, then so be it.
Any empirical observation that cannot be explained within your alternate model, stands as a disproof of your model. Accurate models, like optics, explain all empirical observations without inconsistency.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (0 members and 7 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.67550 seconds with 14 queries