A revolution in thought

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the word "dingbat" was despicable and totally uncalled for. You played a game of being nice guy and then turned on me. That's not fair play in any serious debate. I never said you were of puny intelligence.

Hmmm.... that's not very accurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, what a fraud you are. Amazing that you think your puny intelligence, when you haven't even read the chapter, gives you the right to be so disrespectful. You are no different than NA was. Bait and switch. I could care less what you think of me, you will not have the last word. I refuse to answer any of your posts from here on in, so don't even try to talk to me. You are despicable for faking interest only to attack my character when you couldn't get it, as if your intelligence is the end all. You suck.

Actually, I am a nice guy and I had honest, legitimate questions. But you never answer or explain anything and that just becomes tiring.
If Lessans' ideas were accurate and you understand them, then it shouldn't be so hard for you to explain them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Hmmm.... that's not very accurate.

I was very upset. Imagine for a second that this is a real true discovery that can bring lasting peace to the world, and somebody comes online and because he doesn't get something suddenly turns on you and says you're a dingbat. How would you feel?

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Actually, I am a nice guy and I had honest, legitimate questions. But you never answer or explain anything and that just becomes tiring.
If Lessans' ideas were accurate and you understand them, then it shouldn't be so hard for you to explain them.

I am working diligently to explain his findings but people are so convinced that the eyes are a sense organ, I can't make headway. They are here not to learn what he discovered, but to try to convince me of how wrong he was. I don't agree. You are definitely being influenced by everyone in here. I guarantee that if we were discussing this book in a different venue, you wouldn't come off this way but you're so sure he was wrong by how others are reacting that you feel justified in calling me names.

[Artemis Entreri]

People here are asking legitimate questions, which is what people do when presented with new ideas and theories.
I didn't want to ask any more questions but dang it here goes...

Let’s set up a thought experiment in a closed system (you seem to like closed systems)

The system has at one end a light source and at a distance "D" is a mirror. The Observer is standing between them, facing the mirror, at a distance "d" from the mirror. Lets also place the Observer slightly to the side so as not to block the light. We will assume the space is a perfect empty vacuum.

At time(t)= 0 the light source is turned on and light travels outward at the speed of light "C." At this exact moment the Observe cannot see anything, even if he/she were facing the light source the eyes could not see anything since light hasn't reached them yet.

t=(D-d)/C : Light strikes the Observer from behind. At this point the Observer could turn around and see the light and also see his/her own hands, arms, ect. However, everything towards the mirrored end of the space would still be black.

t=D/C : Light strikes the mirror and is reflected back. At this point the Observer still cannot see the light reflected from the mirror. This is because the reflected light still has to travel back to the Observer’s eye.

t=(D+d)/C : The reflected light from the mirror strikes the eye. The Observer can now see the light reflected from the mirror.

At Time (T) the light source is switched off. At this moment the Observer can still see light reflecting from the mirror even though the light source has gone dark.

t= T + (D-d)/C : There is no longer any light hitting the Observer from behind. However, the Observer can still see light being reflect from the mirror.
t= T + D/C : The final photons from the light source strike the mirror. At this moment the mirror goes dark. However, the Observe will still see last light that was reflected off the mirror.

t=T + (D+d)/C : The final photons of light strike the Observer, after that he/she can no longer see anything.

This is how afferent vision works with light and mirrors. This should work for a candle in a small room or for the sun in an astronomically big space. The math is the same but the time (t) would change dramatically. If I messed up the math or the physics of the experiment I welcome anyone to correct it.


So what is the “efferent” model prediction for that experiment? I’m assuming that you would say that the Observer would see the light the instant it turned on at t=0. Is that correct? It almost seem futile to ask at this point how this could be when we agree that light has to be on the eye for the eyes to see, and that light travels at a known speed , and in order for it to get there it would take a time equal to the distance divided by the speed.

However, I’m really curious what an Efferent Observer would see at Time “T”. Would an Efferent Observer see the light go dark or would his eye still register photons travelling from the source to the mirror and to his/her eye?

[davidm]

Artemis, I suggest you stick with your original instincts and abandon this thread. Everybody should.

She won't understand your questions. She knows nothing about math, or anything else. She claims we see in real time. There are countless disproofs of this, and we have gone over each and every one of them in detail with her, to no effect. Here she still is, saying the same stupid, wrong things, having learned nothing. And this has been going on here for more than three years, but for more than ten years on the Internet. If you don't believe it, Google "peacegirl" and "Lessans" and you'll get her same old shit from the first years of the last decade, at different boards. The best stuff of all was her archived discussions at iidb some seven years ago, but they appear to be no longer accessible, as both iidb and its successor no longer exist.

Let me give you an example: some months ago, The Lone Ranger mathematically proved that we do not see in real time (a true mathematical proof, not like her dipshit father's "mathematically undeniable" nonsense about stuff that does not even involve math.) He mathematically demonstrated one of the disproofs of Lessan's claims; viz., he showed that in order to successfully land a rover on Mars, we must take into account delayed-time seeing to plot the trajectory. Of course this made no difference to her. She even claimed that for the proof to be valid, it would require that NASA launch probes to objects more distant than Mars, showing that she was blissfully ignorant of the fact that NASA has sent probes to every planet in the solar system except Pluto (which I still regard as a planet even though astronomers have downgraded it to a lesser category) and of course even landed a probe on Titan.

Don't get sucked in with this nonsense. She just needs attention; it's her cocaine.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered him Artemis, but he doesn't like the answers I give...

The dingbat lies again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the word "dingbat" was despicable and totally uncalled for.

Nope. You called yourself a dingbat and said it was "okay".

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope...

Bump.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. You called yourself a dingbat and said it was "okay".

Actually, to be honest I refered to her as a dingbat first... unless she used that term before I joined the thread.
To me "dingbat" is probably one of the mildest derogatory terms I could use. It's actually one I'd use affectionately with friends. If I had really wanted to be insulting I could come up with many more visceral terms.

I will note that the response that you're quoting, along with all the other things in her response, about what peacegirl said she said were very much wrong... I went back and quoted what she actually said a couple of posts back.

[The Lone Ranger]

It's worth keeping in mind that as far as peacegirl is concerned, the only "legitimate" and "honest" questions are those that are along the lines of: "How did Lessans get to be so brilliant?"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

People here are asking legitimate questions, which is what people do when presented with new ideas and theories.
I didn't want to ask any more questions but dang it here goes...

Let’s set up a thought experiment in a closed system (you seem to like closed systems)

The system has at one end a light source and at a distance "D" is a mirror. The Observer is standing between them, facing the mirror, at a distance "d" from the mirror. Lets also place the Observer slightly to the side so as not to block the light. We will assume the space is a perfect empty vacuum.

At time(t)= 0 the light source is turned on and light travels outward at the speed of light "C." At this exact moment the Observer cannot see anything, even if he/she were facing the light source the eyes could not see anything since light hasn't reached them yet.

t=(D-d)/C : Light strikes the Observer from behind. At this point the Observer could turn around and see the light and also see his/her own hands, arms, ect. However, everything towards the mirrored end of the space would still be black.

t=D/C : Light strikes the mirror and is reflected back. At this point the Observer still cannot see the light reflected from the mirror. This is because the reflected light still has to travel back to the Observer’s eye.

t=(D+d)/C : The reflected light from the mirror strikes the eye. The Observer can now see the light reflected from the mirror.

At Time (T) the light source is switched off. At this moment the Observer can still see light reflecting from the mirror even though the light source has gone dark.

t= T + (D-d)/C : There is no longer any light hitting the Observer from behind. However, the Observer can still see light being reflect from the mirror.
t= T + D/C : The final photons from the light source strike the mirror. At this moment the mirror goes dark. However, the Observer will still see last light that was reflected off the mirror.

t=T + (D+d)/C : The final photons of light strike the Observer, after that he/she can no longer see anything.

This is how afferent vision works with light and mirrors. This should work for a candle in a small room or for the sun in an astronomically big space. The math is the same but the time (t) would change dramatically. If I messed up the math or the physics of the experiment I welcome anyone to correct it.


So what is the “efferent” model prediction for that experiment? I’m assuming that you would say that the Observer would see the light the instant it turned on at t=0. Is that correct? It almost seem futile to ask at this point how this could be when we agree that light has to be on the eye for the eyes to see, and that light travels at a known speed , and in order for it to get there it would take a time equal to the distance divided by the speed.

Before I answer you, I am hoping that you will be civil with me. Even if you disagree with what I have to say, or you need more information to figure it all out, I hope that you won't suddenly decide that I'm not worth being respectful to. There is no reason to call someone names just because you don't understand or fully grasp what they're saying.

I agree, it is futile to ask how the Observer would see the light the instant it turned on because you are thinking in terms of distance and time. You are not looking at this in terms of what it means to be looking out. You are using the same logic as Spacemonkey, and it doesn't work in this account when we're talking about physical matter and the function of light. Let's go back to the example with the candle for a second. When a candle is turned on light has to travel for us to see it. But if you think in terms of a closed system (or the box example) we would see it instantly because the only requirement is that the source is bright enough and large enough to be seen. Being that we are able to see the candle, this means that the photons are at the eye. It does not mean that photons don't travel. To work this backwards for greater understanding, if we are able to see the Sun, this would indicate that we would already be within optical range, but seeing the Sun turned on would not require light to have arrived on Earth. If we are to see our hands, light would have to arrive on Earth because light has to be emitted or reflected from the object.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

However, I’m really curious what an Efferent Observer would see at Time “T”. Would an Efferent Observer see the light go dark or would his eye still register photons travelling from the source to the mirror and to his/her eye?

If the candle (the source) went out he would still register photons at his eye (although it would be so quick that it would be imperceptible), but he wouldn't see an image of the candle (remember flames are comprised of matter). The same thing applies to the Sun. He would still register photons hitting his photoreceptors (which would take longer to go dark than the candle) but he would get no image of the Sun (which is comprised of matter) because it would no longer be present, and in this account the object has to be present for it to be seen.

[davidm]

lol

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. You called yourself a dingbat and said it was "okay".

I said it tongue and cheek. I would never let someone call me such terrible names, especially when the intention is to hurt me. I deserve to be respected just like everyone else, and my ideas should have no influence on this basic human courtesy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's worth keeping in mind that as far as peacegirl is concerned, the only "legitimate" and "honest" questions are those that are along the lines of: "How did Lessans get to be so brilliant?"

That line of questioning would not be expected or desired, not even by Lessans himself. The only thing that mattered to him was getting this knowledge brought to light so that war and crime could be brought to a permanent end.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Artemis, I suggest you stick with your original instincts and abandon this thread. Everybody should.

She won't understand your questions. She knows nothing about math, or anything else. She claims we see in real time. There are countless disproofs of this, and we have gone over each and every one of them in detail with her, to no effect. Here she still is, saying the same stupid, wrong things, having learned nothing. And this has been going on here for more than three years, but for more than ten years on the Internet. If you don't believe it, Google "peacegirl" and "Lessans" and you'll get her same old shit from the first years of the last decade, at different boards. The best stuff of all was her archived discussions at iidb some seven years ago, but they appear to be no longer accessible, as both iidb and its successor no longer exist.

Let me give you an example: some months ago, The Lone Ranger mathematically proved that we do not see in real time (a true mathematical proof, not like her dipshit father's "mathematically undeniable" nonsense about stuff that does not even involve math.) He mathematically demonstrated one of the disproofs of Lessan's claims; viz., he showed that in order to successfully land a rover on Mars, we must take into account delayed-time seeing to plot the trajectory. Of course this made no difference to her. She even claimed that for the proof to be valid, it would require that NASA launch probes to objects more distant than Mars, showing that she was blissfully ignorant of the fact that NASA has sent probes to every planet in the solar system except Pluto (which I still regard as a planet even though astronomers have downgraded it to a lesser category) and of course even landed a probe on Titan.

I don't remember saying that for the proof to be valid it would require NASA launch probes to objects more distant than Mars. I said I didn't believe the time/light delay made the difference in whether we hit the planet or not.

Originally Posted by davidm

Don't get sucked in with this nonsense. She just needs attention; it's her cocaine.

No it isn't. I need to talk about the discovery because it's a lonely place to be when I don't share it. It's too heavy a burden to carry alone.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's go back to the example with the candle since it's easier to imagine. If the candle (the source) went out would he still would register photons at his eye but he wouldn't see an image of the candle. The same thing applies to the Sun. He would still register photons hitting his photoreceptors but he would get no image of the Sun (which is comprised of matter) because it would no longer be present, and in this account the object has to be present for it to be seen.

So how would that work? You'd see light but not the light source?
In the example the Observer would only see the light source; in the case of a candle it would just be the flame. (Lets just forget about the candle stick for the moment and just concentrate on the source/flame)
If the observer can't see the flame but is still seeing light then how would that light look like?

Also, when the light source is "on" how does the brain reconcile seeing a light source in real time while also receiving time delayed photons that have traveled to the eye? If the eye is only seeing the object in real time without any effect from travel delayed light then why have you said that the light has to be at the eye?


Seems like that efferent vision in theory would only require light to be at the object, not at the eye. That would be inside-out instead of outside-in. It also fits with your comments about light "revealing" objects and Lessans "as through a window" analogy. Yet when I've asked before if that was how efferent vision works you mockingly called it magic, and said that light would have to be at the eyes.
So let me see if this is right
Light at the object + light traveling from the object hasn't reached the eye = the eye can see the object in real time
No Light at the object + light from the object still traveling striking the eye= the eye cannot see the object
This makes it seem like the light traveling from the object to the eye is not important at all in the function of "efferent" sight.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said it tongue and cheek. I would never let someone call me such terrible names, especially when the intention is to hurt me. I deserve to be respected just like everyone else, and my ideas should have no influence on this basic human courtesy.

It you really think "dingbat" is a "terrible name" then you are by far the most thin-skinned person I've ever met. When I first wrote that post the only part that I thought you might get offended by was the reference to "Pig Newton." I was more worried that you might somehow misinterpret that to think I was in some way calling you a pig ( I assuredly was not). I don't know many people that would take "digbat" seriously, but pretty much everyone would be offended being called a pig... even though pigs are quite intelligent animals.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

So how would that work? You'd see light but not the light source?

Exactly. The Sun would be like any other piece of matter, which light reveals.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

In the example the Observer would only see the light source; in the case of a candle it would just be the flame. (Lets just forget about the candle stick for the moment and just concentrate on the source/flame)
If the observer can't see the flame but is still seeing light then how would that light look like?

It would be white light or the full spectrum on his photoreceptors, not an image of the candle.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Also, when the light source is "on" how does the brain reconcile seeing a light source in real time while also receiving time delayed photons that have traveled to the eye? If the eye is only seeing the object in real time without any effect from travel delayed light then why have you said that the light has to be at the eye?

It has to be at the eye or we couldn't see. The entire mechanism is reversed in this account (which no one is carefully analyzing) where the photons are already at our eyes due to the fact that we can see the object. It works in reverse. We are not waiting for light to arrive. We see the object because it's there to be seen (when we're gazing in that direction), which places the light at the eye already, or we wouldn't be able to see the object. This is hard to grasp when people have been taught that we are waiting for the light to bring the information to us to be decoded in the brain.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Seems like that efferent vision in theory would only require light to be at the object, not at the eye. That would be inside-out instead of outside-in. It also fits with your comments about light "revealing" objects and Lessans "as through a window" analogy. Yet when I've asked before if that was how efferent vision works you mockingly called it magic, and said that light would have to be at the eyes.

I said it's not magic Artemis. To repeat: light would be at the eye (which people are having a hard time grasping) because distance, and therefore, time in the efferent account are not factors. That's why I used the analogy of the candle. If both are within a closed system, and both the light from the candle and from the Sun reach the other side of the box where the observer is viewing (his visual landscape), both would be seen because both meet the requirements of efferent vision. It's hard to compare these two if you are coming from the afferent perspective. Obviously, a candle is a few feet away and the Sun is many millions of miles away, but the principle remains the same.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

So let me see if this is right
Light at the object + light traveling from the object hasn't reached the eye = the eye can see the object in real time

No, that would be magic. You're not getting it.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

No Light at the object + light from the object still traveling striking the eye= the eye cannot see the object

That's not right. Light being reflected from the object would be at the eye ONLY if we were able to see said object. There would be no waiting time as a result. If the object was not bright enough to be seen (remember, we're not waiting to decode the image in the light), the light would not be at our eyes because the object would be out of our visual range. In this account we do not have to wait for the light to arrive, which is the afferent point of view as to how the eyes work. The truth is we can't see an event that is no longer there. To give you another example which I've mentioned many times: It has been assumed that the event of Columbus discovering America is traveling in the light somewhere in the universe. According to this reasoning all it would take is for our eyes to be in just the right spot, and we would get an image of this past event. This is wrong.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

This makes it seem like the light traveling from the object to the eye is not important at all in the function of sight.

We cannot see without light, so it plays an indispensable role, but it's function is not to bring us the external world to us as light travels; it is to reveal the external world as light travels.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the candle (the source) went out he would still register photons at his eye (although it would be so quick that it would be imperceptible), but he wouldn't see an image of the candle (remember flames are comprised of matter). The same thing applies to the Sun. He would still register photons hitting his photoreceptors (which would take longer to go dark than the candle) but he would get no image of the Sun (which is comprised of matter) because it would no longer be present, and in this account the object has to be present for it to be seen.

If the light source goes out and the photons are still striking the photo receptors (retina), according to you, the observer would not see the object but would still perceive light? What would that light look like?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said it tongue and cheek.

Then so did I. Get over it, Dingbat, and stop lying about having answered my questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said it tongue and cheek. I would never let someone call me such terrible names, especially when the intention is to hurt me. I deserve to be respected just like everyone else, and my ideas should have no influence on this basic human courtesy.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

It you really think "dingbat" is a "terrible name" then you are by far the most thin-skinned person I've ever met. When I first wrote that post the only part that I thought you might get offended by was the reference to "Pig Newton." I was more worried that you might somehow misinterpret that to think I was in some way calling you a pig ( I assuredly was not). I don't know many people that would take "digbat" seriously, but pretty much everyone would be offended being called a pig... even though pigs are quite intelligent animals.

It's the intention Artemis. That word rubbed me the wrong way, and it came out of left field. We were in a discussion and you suddenly turned on me. The word dingbat is not a nice word unless it's some kind of private joke with friends with affectionate overtones. This was not used affectionately. I think I'm pretty thick skinned considering the length of time I've been here and what I've been through. You are not putting yourself in my shoes or you wouldn't say what you said.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see the object because it's there to be seen (when we're gazing in that direction), which places the light at the eye already, or we wouldn't be able to see the object.

That right there. You say I don't "get it" that I don't understand. Well please explain the sentence above in a way that another person can understand. How does seeing the object place light instantly at our eye?

The afferent model of vision has an explanation for how the light gets to the eye. This explanation takes into account a delay caused by time and distance. You keep saying that time and distance do not matter, yet time and distance are real and must be accounted for. If not then you must explain why not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then so did I. Get over it, Dingbat, and stop lying about having answered my questions.

You've gone completely off the deep end.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've gone completely off the deep end.

More dishonest evasion.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's the intention Artemis. That word rubbed me the wrong way, and it came out of left field. We were in a discussion and you suddenly turned on me. The word dingbat is not a nice word unless it's some kind of private joke with friends with affectionate overtones. This was not used affectionately. I think I'm pretty thick skinned considering the length of time I've been here and what I've been through. You are not putting yourself in my shoes or you wouldn't say what you said.

No-one else wants to be in your shoes, those you wear of your own choosing. You are here strictly for the hostility and abuse, it feeds your martyr complex.
If it weren't for your pathological need for abuse you would have been long gone. You are here because they haven't locked the thread, so you return to get your "fix" of hostility and abuse. Just about anything said "Rubs" you the wrong way because you take everything as directed just at you as abuse. You wouldn't have it any other way. You left "Dissident Philosophy" because there were people there who actually believed your nonsense and wanted to hear more, but a positive reaction was not what you wanted. You are looking for hostility and abuse and when a thread is locked and you can no longer get it you go somewhere else. You tried it on Project Reason, and they locked the thread so you came back here. It would be a lot healthier for you if you were to just admit your obsession with abuse and enjoy it, you really are a masochist.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Optical range is synonymous with "field of view". I've told you this already.

The field of view (also field of vision, abbreviated FOV or instantaneous field of view, abbreviated IFOV) is the extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment.

Field of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where in that article does it state that Field of View is instantaneous?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was very upset. Imagine for a second that this is a real true discovery that can bring lasting peace to the world, and somebody comes online and because he doesn't get something suddenly turns on you and says you're a dingbat. How would you feel?

Your being upset might pass as an excuse for you accusing Artemis of having a "puny intelligence", but it does not excuse your subsequent flat out denial that you ever said that. What is your excuse for that?