A revolution in thought - Page 201

LadyShea · #**5001** 05-30-2011, 09:20 PM

5000!!!

LadyShea · #**5002** 05-30-2011, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

If I understand what Lessans is saying correctly, he did not believe that we see things because of reflected light at all. Light needs to be around for us to see, but it is not what we see--we see things themselves. Do I have that wrong?

Well, he and peacegirl both also stated we can see "things" that are not objects, but pure light- like the sun, stars, mirror reflections, rainbows, TV screens and computer monitors. So they do not state we don't see light, only that light does not need to travel to our eye for us to see it.

thedoc · #**5003** 05-30-2011, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you're not wrong. But please understand that light is a necessary condition of sight. That was the very first thing he wanted people to understand, but people still believe when he said "we can see the moon instantly" that this meant we can see objects without any light present. :doh:

Hey knock it off,

It's party time now,

If you don't stop I'm not going to sneek you into the party.

Lets get serious about having some fun.

thedoc · #**5004** 05-30-2011, 09:30 PM

We've got 10 pages of meaningless drivel, before we can get back to the 210th page of meaningless drivel.

peacegirl · #**5005** 05-30-2011, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

In the idea of efferent vision light is a condition of sight, so light needs to be present for the brain to look out thru the eyes to 'directly see the object'. It seems that the light is somehow a signal for the brain to look thru the eye to see the object. However this seeing is not in the light but is direct, and the knowledge of the object comes directly to the brain, the question is what is bringing the knowledge to the brain, the brain and the object are not in direct contact if there is some distance between them, what medium, carrying the information, bridges the gap instantly?

Why does knowledge have to travel to the brain? Why can't the brain, through the eyes, see what exists, and take what it sees to form new ideas? Why is the possibility of this so difficult to accept?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

If an object suddenly appears a very long way off (several light hours or days) and the light has not yet arrived on the Earth, what signals the brain to look at the object?

Nothing has to signal the brain to look at the object, unless there is a reason to look in that direction. The moon might be out tonight, but unless it's unusually full, I probably won't notice. But that doesn't mean it's not in my field of vision.

Remember there was no light from this object on Earth before it appeared. Granted if there is a continuous stream of light the 'old light' could trigger the brain to look, but if the object suddenly appears there is no 'old light' and the 'new light' has not arrived, so there is nothing to trigger the brain to look for the object, so the brain would not be able to see it.

The brain, looking through the eyes, sees what exists. Nothing has to trigger the brain to see what is in view, although something suddenly appearing would probably get a person's attention.

peacegirl · #**5006** 05-30-2011, 09:38 PM

Hey, I just noticed we've past page 200. Has the party started??? Let's eat. :popcorn:

peacegirl · #**5007** 05-30-2011, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... people will not move forward, so there's nowhere to go.

And whose fault is that, pg?

What do you mean by that?

I mean, who do you think is to blame for the lack of progress you have made here?

No one's to blame.

peacegirl · #**5008** 05-30-2011, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

It's their way or the highway, therefore I choose the highway because their way is not 100% right.

You don't understand science enough to make that statement.

I know intuitively that David is wrong when he tells me that efferent vision means information is being transferred faster than the speed of light. That's insane, but when someone is transfixed on their beliefs to the degree David is, there's no getting through. I know the irony meter is exploding right now.

I told you that as well, and I explained it in detail in a major post a few pages back. Efferent vision does mean that, if it is true. There is no way around that conclusion because they are lifted directly from the book where Lessans states someone on Rigel would see someone on Earth at the same exact moment in time through a telescope.

Your intuition is more likely to be telling you that you don't like davidm and so aren't going to believe anything he has to say.

I actually have no ill feelings toward anyone. But David is extremely invested in this topic because that's his field of interest. He can't accept that his line of thinking could be wrong. He says that knowledge or information has to transfer, and that transfer takes place through space and time, which is carried by light. Obviously, that premise would exclude seeing in real time. But I don't agree that the premise is accurate in this particular instance. I also don't think that seeing in real time discredits the theory of relativity.

peacegirl · #**5009** 05-30-2011, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you actually think I'm going to answer all of these questions that are bombarding me? I would have no time for anything. As it now stands, I have not done my laundry for two months; not seen my grandchildren for almost that long, except for a few hours, or done anything in regard to my other book. I cannot do this continually, so you will have to decide for yourselves whether there is any possible truth in what Lessans is saying, and continue on if it is worth it to you. You are entitled to disagree. Lessans himself would tell you that you are entitled to your opinon. That is why I loved him so much; he never told me what to do, who I'm supposed to be, or how valuable I was based on my attributes. His knowledge saved my life, and made me strong and confident in who I was born to be. I adored this man for that reason, and I hope you don't give up on this knowledge, but if you do, IT'S YOUR LOSS.

Important lesson for leaving in a huff - when you slam the door shouting "I will never set foot in this house again!", make sure you have your coat and carkeys.

Thanks for reminding me. :wave:

thedoc · #**5010** 05-30-2011, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I actually have no ill feelings toward anyone. I also don't think that seeing in real time discredits the theory of relativity.

OK, that's it, we said no more shop talk during the party, you are no longer invited, if you show up you are crashing the party as an unvinted guest!

peacegirl · #**5011** 05-30-2011, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

HOW CAN I HAVE A CONVERSATION IN HERE?

That does seem to be the problem with you on one side quoting incoherent nonsense, and everyone else on the other side trying to explain how the world really works. Simply put, Lessans got it wrong and nothing will change that.

And do you think your comment actually said anything? :eek:

thedoc · #**5012** 05-30-2011, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

HOW CAN I HAVE A CONVERSATION IN HERE?

That does seem to be the problem with you on one side quoting incoherent nonsense, and everyone else on the other side trying to explain how the world really works. Simply put, Lessans got it wrong and nothing will change that.

And do you think your comment actually said anything? :eek:

My comment has said more, that was meaningful, in that short paragraph than you have since 2003, and more than Lessans did in 500+ pages.

peacegirl · #**5013** 05-30-2011, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I actually have no ill feelings toward anyone. I also don't think that seeing in real time discredits the theory of relativity.

OK, that's it, we said no more shop talk during the party, you are no longer invited, if you show up you are crashing the party as an unvinted guest!

HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY EVERYONE!!!!!!!

peacegirl · #**5014** 05-30-2011, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

HOW CAN I HAVE A CONVERSATION IN HERE?

That does seem to be the problem with you on one side quoting incoherent nonsense, and everyone else on the other side trying to explain how the world really works. Simply put, Lessans got it wrong and nothing will change that.

And do you think your comment actually said anything? :eek:

My comment has said more, that was meaningful, in that short paragraph than you have since 2003, and more than Lessans did in 500+ pages.

Hmmm, I have to think about that. :chin:

davidm · #**5015** 05-30-2011, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

It's their way or the highway, therefore I choose the highway because their way is not 100% right.

You don't understand science enough to make that statement.

I know intuitively that David is wrong when he tells me that efferent vision means information is being transferred faster than the speed of light. That's insane, but when someone is transfixed on their beliefs to the degree David is, there's no getting through. I know the irony meter is exploding right now.

Information is being transferred INSTANTANEOUSLY in the idiot's model; that is infinitely faster than the speed of light!

Hey ... wait a minute!

What is wrong with everyone???

peacegirl · #**5016** 05-30-2011, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

YouTube - ‪Largest July 4th Fireworks Display in America‬&rlm;

Thanks doc!!

peacegirl · #**5017** 05-30-2011, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

It's their way or the highway, therefore I choose the highway because their way is not 100% right.

You don't understand science enough to make that statement.

I know intuitively that David is wrong when he tells me that efferent vision means information is being transferred faster than the speed of light. That's insane, but when someone is transfixed on their beliefs to the degree David is, there's no getting through. I know the irony meter is exploding right now.

Information is being transferred INSTANTANEOUSLY in the idiot's model; that is infinitely faster than the speed of light!

Hey ... wait a minute!

What is wrong with everyone???

davidm · #**5018** 05-30-2011, 10:29 PM

[quote=peacegirl;948955]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

No, you're not wrong. But please understand that light is a necessary condition of sight. That was the very first thing he wanted people to understand, but people still believe when he said "we can see the moon instantly" that this meant we can see objects without any light present. :doh:

Say what??? :doh:

Good God, are you stupid!

No one thinks he meant that we can see objects without any light present. Even an idiot like Lessans understood that you needed light to be present, to fucking see objects!

What is wrong is the claim that we can fucking see the moon instantly.

Honestly, do you have a brain in your head?

SIDE NOTE: Thanks to thedoc for trying to create a proper party. I am stunned to see how this party crapped out. :sadcheer:

Just go back and look at the 100-page party for a comparison.

peacegirl · #**5019** 05-30-2011, 10:30 PM

I have an interesting book I'm reading. You're all gonna laugh!!! Wanna know what it is? It's not Decline and Fall of All Evil. You might like this book David. I'm sure when the new edition comes out, you'll want my father's discovery mentioned. Can you guess what the title is? I just gave you a hint.

peacegirl · #**5020** 05-30-2011, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

No, you're not wrong. But please understand that light is a necessary condition of sight. That was the very first thing he wanted people to understand, but people still believe when he said "we can see the moon instantly" that this meant we can see objects without any light present. :doh:

Say what??? :doh:

Good God, are you stupid!

No one thinks he meant that we can see objects without any light present. Even an idiot like Lessans understood that you needed light to be present, to fucking see objects!

What is wrong is the claim that we can fucking see the moon instantly.

Honestly, do you have a brain in your head?

SIDE NOTE: Thanks to thedoc for trying to create a proper party. I am stunned to see how this party crapped out. :sadcheer:

Just go back and look at the 100-page party for a comparison.

Stop saying the same thing over and over David. The definition of insanity is saying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

davidm · #**5021** 05-30-2011, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

In the idea of efferent vision light is a condition of sight, so light needs to be present for the brain to look out thru the eyes to 'directly see the object'. It seems that the light is somehow a signal for the brain to look thru the eye to see the object. However this seeing is not in the light but is direct, and the knowledge of the object comes directly to the brain, the question is what is bringing the knowledge to the brain, the brain and the object are not in direct contact if there is some distance between them, what medium, carrying the information, bridges the gap instantly?

Why does knowledge have to travel to the brain? Why can't the brain, through the eyes, see what exists, and take what it sees to form new ideas? Why is the possibility of this so difficult to accept?

Oh, lord! How do you make it through the day?

PEOPLE, WHERE IS THE PARTY???!

davidm · #**5022** 05-30-2011, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

It's their way or the highway, therefore I choose the highway because their way is not 100% right.

You don't understand science enough to make that statement.

I know intuitively that David is wrong when he tells me that efferent vision means information is being transferred faster than the speed of light. That's insane, but when someone is transfixed on their beliefs to the degree David is, there's no getting through. I know the irony meter is exploding right now.

I told you that as well, and I explained it in detail in a major post a few pages back. Efferent vision does mean that, if it is true. There is no way around that conclusion because they are lifted directly from the book where Lessans states someone on Rigel would see someone on Earth at the same exact moment in time through a telescope.

Your intuition is more likely to be telling you that you don't like davidm and so aren't going to believe anything he has to say.

I actually have no ill feelings toward anyone. But David is extremely invested in this topic because that's his field of interest. He can't accept that his line of thinking could be wrong. He says that knowledge or information has to transfer, and that transfer takes place through space and time, which is carried by light. Obviously, that premise would exclude seeing in real time. But I don't agree that the premise is accurate in this particular instance. I also don't think that seeing in real time discredits the theory of relativity.

Care to explain WHY you think this?

:lol:

Thought not!

peacegirl · #**5023** 05-30-2011, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

No, you're not wrong. But please understand that light is a necessary condition of sight. That was the very first thing he wanted people to understand, but people still believe when he said "we can see the moon instantly" that this meant we can see objects without any light present. :doh:

Say what??? :doh:

Good God, are you stupid!

No one thinks he meant that we can see objects without any light present. Even an idiot like Lessans understood that you needed light to be present, to fucking see objects!

What is wrong is the claim that we can fucking see the moon instantly.

Honestly, do you have a brain in your head?

SIDE NOTE: Thanks to thedoc for trying to create a proper party. I am stunned to see how this party crapped out. :sadcheer:

Just go back and look at the 100-page party for a comparison.

I think this party pooped out because it landed on Memorial Day. Hey, going to a barbecue sounds a lot better than eating those mashed potatoes. :sadcheer:

davidm · #**5024** 05-30-2011, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

HOW CAN I HAVE A CONVERSATION IN HERE?

That does seem to be the problem with you on one side quoting incoherent nonsense, and everyone else on the other side trying to explain how the world really works. Simply put, Lessans got it wrong and nothing will change that.

And do you think your comment actually said anything? :eek:

Yes. His comment was true. That is saying something.

And you are an idiot. :wave:

peacegirl · #**5025** 05-30-2011, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

It's their way or the highway, therefore I choose the highway because their way is not 100% right.

You don't understand science enough to make that statement.

I know intuitively that David is wrong when he tells me that efferent vision means information is being transferred faster than the speed of light. That's insane, but when someone is transfixed on their beliefs to the degree David is, there's no getting through. I know the irony meter is exploding right now.

I told you that as well, and I explained it in detail in a major post a few pages back. Efferent vision does mean that, if it is true. There is no way around that conclusion because they are lifted directly from the book where Lessans states someone on Rigel would see someone on Earth at the same exact moment in time through a telescope.

Your intuition is more likely to be telling you that you don't like davidm and so aren't going to believe anything he has to say.

I actually have no ill feelings toward anyone. But David is extremely invested in this topic because that's his field of interest. He can't accept that his line of thinking could be wrong. He says that knowledge or information has to transfer, and that transfer takes place through space and time, which is carried by light. Obviously, that premise would exclude seeing in real time. But I don't agree that the premise is accurate in this particular instance. I also don't think that seeing in real time discredits the theory of relativity.

Care to explain WHY you think this?

:lol:

Thought not!

No talking about this for 10 pages, remember? You made up the rules.