Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1976  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:13 PM
Awareness's Avatar
Awareness Awareness is offline
Always keep cool.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Netherlands
Gender: Male
Posts: MDCCCVIII
Images: 9
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
He was separating a screen of undeniable substance which anything in the real world that exists, from a word that is projected onto a screen of undeniable substance. For your benefit only I will post this one part again. Please read it carefully.
We have been taught from the day we were born how to see things, and some body is investigating HIS own bullshit.


Reality is right peacegirl, so really start looking around you real carefully.
__________________
REMEMBER...........THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN IS ONLY AND JUST ONLY THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN, HOW YOU ARE AS A PERSON MAKES YOU A WHOLE PERSON AND NOTHING ELSE....HOW YOU HAVE SEX , HOW YOU DRESS UP, HOW YOU PRAY only gives away your hobbies

HOW YOU ARE AS A PERSON IS THE MASTER !!
Reply With Quote
  #1977  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:20 PM
Awareness's Avatar
Awareness Awareness is offline
Always keep cool.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Netherlands
Gender: Male
Posts: MDCCCVIII
Images: 9
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
He was separating a screen of undeniable substance which anything in the real world that exists, from a word that is projected onto a screen of undeniable substance. For your benefit only I will post this one part again. Please read it carefully.
We have been taught from the day we were born how to see things, and some body is investigating HIS own bullshit.
__________________
REMEMBER...........THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN IS ONLY AND JUST ONLY THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN, HOW YOU ARE AS A PERSON MAKES YOU A WHOLE PERSON AND NOTHING ELSE....HOW YOU HAVE SEX , HOW YOU DRESS UP, HOW YOU PRAY only gives away your hobbies

HOW YOU ARE AS A PERSON IS THE MASTER !!
Reply With Quote
  #1978  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:33 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse View Post
To begin with, what the heck? Why, out of all the things that have been discussed since this post, do you go back to it? I'm going to randomly pick a post of yours from 30 pages ago and start responding to it.

It is really more coherent to respond to posts in the order in which they were posted. So, you would start with the post after your last post and respond to that, and then move the next post, etc. Otherwise, people think you are ignoring them, and you may screw up the flow of the conversation, because other people may have built their conversation around previous posts.

I think you do this because you are flailing around so much and just hammer at things randomly because, of course, we are all wrong.
You're right about reading the posts in the order in which they were written, but sometimes I like having a conversation in real time which means I post something and then the person who is online responds. Unfortunately, the previous posts take a back seat. But I try to catch up at one point or another. I will try to be more conscious of their order because it does mess up the flow of conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

You're right that if the universe is not ready, no amount of convincing would matter, but the universe is ready. We need this knowledge more than ever. It might take another century for this discovery to be recognized, but it has to start somewhere, and there's no time like the present.[emphasis added]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When the universe is ready, that's when this discovery will come to light, and not a second sooner.[emphasis added]
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
This is what you said that started my whole response to you along these lines. In this earlier sentence, you imply that the universe is not ready yet, otherwise the discovery would be recognized.
That's part of it. Lessans was ahead of his time. The ignorance that existed in his day was a lot greater than the ignorance that exists today and because his knowledge was so far removed from their understanding, he probably would have been given the hemlock that killed Socrates, if he had been living at that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Maybe it wasn't the best analogy, but it was his, and I won't touch his words. I could clarify his words, but not change them. The fact that his analogy could have been better still doesn't change the meaning which is that he was giving something to mankind that requires people to pass it on. How long it will take for this new world to become a reality depends on when this book is confirmed valid by leading scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Whatever. So the universe isn't ready yet (again), because it is waiting on scientists to confirm the book. And people are required to pass it on, but not teach other people about this. Either way, it has no bearing on whether the discovery will come to fruition, because it will happen when the universe is ready.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That is true, but I am part of making this happen, just as everyone has an input into the ripple effect of this world. The universe is ready to at least hear what this man had to say. I am not even saying they have to agree. Years ago they would have rejected him because the world's thinking was so far removed from his findings. Can't you get this? :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Also, this is an example of you over-promoting Lessans. Socrates is a foundational figure in philosophy (not science!), and to compare Lessans to Socrates is to pretend that Lessans is similar. That is a big claim, which requires evidence. Otherwise, people are going to laugh at you and think you lack credibility because you are making overblown points. It is hyperbole when you say this without evidence.
Lessans was also a philosopher. His knowledge came from philosophical discussion, even though it is factual. I write this on the copyright page.

Although this discovery was borne out of philosophical thought, it
is factual, not theoretical, in nature.



Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
I said that because he does not let the idea stand for itself and instead sets himself up as a benefactor of mankind. A person who thinks he is a benefactor of mankind likely has a problem with self-aggrandizement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
So according to you any person who had to explain his findings in as much detail as possible has a problem with self-aggrandizement. I don't agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
NO. A person who says or thinks he is a benefactor of mankind likely has a problem with self-aggrandizement. [A person who had to explain his findings in as much detail as possible] is not the same as [a person who says or thinks he is a benefactor of mankind]. These are not synonymous concepts at all, and to restate my idea in this way shows either that you can't read or that you are dishonestly trying to attribute an idea to me that is not mine.
You are coming to an incorrect conclusion about this man. He was just showing that predicting an eclipse is not the same as giving something to mankind and not having the exact coordinates as to when the transition will occur. You keep telling me he had a problem with self-aggrandizement, and I am telling you he was humble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Ok, I'm tired of this pointless game. I hope you are a troll or some kind of machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
No, I am just a person, not a machine. If you are tired of this, please move on wildernesse. It upsets me that I'm making you tired. I don't want to be responsible for your reaction, but that's how I feel. :(
I appreciate that you did not deny you were a troll.
So now troll and machine have been added to the list of stupid, incapable of higher order thinking, a liar and dishonest. Quite a description, I must say. :eek:

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages
Reply With Quote
  #1979  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:43 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
But then we have FTL particles?
That is assuming that the information is coming into the brain. Don't you see this interpretation could be based on a falsity? I am ready to give up, and it's so sad to me because I do like everyone here and I believe they are sincere and trying to decipher fraud from truth. But I am just at a loss how to continue. :(
I already showed you why the information cannot come from the brain - we would not be able to see different individuals, but ideal projections in stead. Also we need to figure out where the initial "photograph" comes from - what is being recorded without information coming into the brain through the eyes?

Nor would we be able to see out of a window that is sound and smell proofed where we do not know what to expect - while in fact, if a sound-and smellproof situation where we see nothing at first because it is dark (outside! Not inside! Plenty of light in here with us to enable us to see!) and then flood a garden outside the window with light, we can see individual plants.

This is impossible without information coming into the brain through the eyes! All we have done is flood the garden outside with light - we have changed nothing else. This experiment happens every nigh in my house when my automatic floodlight get triggered. Sometimes there is a fox there - sometimes there is not.

How does this happen without information traveling up the good ole optic nerve? How do we see individuals? Where do the original "photographs" come from? Not only is this part of the theory unsupported, it is internally inconsistent. Even if you assume it is correct, it does not work.
It doesn't work because that's not what he is saying. Please read this again:

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees
various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of
differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in
preference to another, or may prefer to play with one toy over
another, but in so far as she is concerned all she sees are a bunch
of objects.

As her eyes are focused on a dog I shall repeat the word
dog rapidly in her ear. When she turns away I stop. This will be
continued until she looks for him when hearing the word which
indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object
has been established and a photograph taken. Soon this relation is
formed which makes her conscious of a particular difference that
exists in the external world.

As she learns more and more words
such as cat, horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of
these differences which no one can deny because they are seen
through words or slides that circumscribe accurately these various
bits of substance. This is exactly how we learn words only I am
speeding up the process. Before long she learns house, tree, car,
chair, door, kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth,
eyes, hair, girl, boy, and so on. Until she learns the word cat she
could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a
negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox
cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the
difference has been developed.

She also learns the names of
individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan,
Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. My
granddaughter can identify her mother from hundreds and
hundreds of photographs because the difference is a negative that
not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not. In other
words, as she learns these names and words her brain takes a
picture of the objects symbolized and when she sees these
differences again she projects the word or name, but the brain will
not take any picture until a relation is formed.

Consequently, these
differences that exist in the external world which are not
identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable
only because they are related to words, names or slides that we
project for recognition. If we would lose certain names or words
we would have amnesia because when we see these ordinarily
familiar differences we are unable to project the words or names
necessary for recognition.
Reply With Quote
  #1980  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:44 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=Awareness;936689]
Quote:
He was separating a screen of undeniable substance from a word that is projected onto a screen of undeniable substance. For your benefit only I will post this one part again. Please read it carefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awareness
We have been taught from the day we were born how to see things, and some body is investigating HIS own bullshit.
Who the hell are you? Please go back to your cave. :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
  #1981  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:50 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
They see because of the light that is being reflected; it's just that the light is not carrying the information to the brain. The brain is seeing the object because of light's presence.
BINGO!

Now, think. Lessans said that if the sun were turned on right now, we would see it immediately, but that we would see the person next to us eight minutes later.

Realize how stupid that is. Once you see the source it means the light has arrived to be reflected. As soon as the light from the source is entering your eyes, so will light be entering your eyes that is reflected off your neighbor. You will the sun eight minutes after it is turned on, and your neighbor, due to the reflected light that has just arrived, at teh same time!
Maybe that's true davidm, but it could also be that his observation had some merit. I'm not going to lie and say I AM SURE because I'm not. First and foremost, his observation as to whether the eyes are a sense organ is paramount before we investigate anything else. So why harp on this one afterthought which won't be able to tell us anything unless we first know for sure whether his claim about the eyes was right or wrong? Is it that you are trying to make him wrong before the real proof can tell us the truth, just so you can be right? :glare:
Wow, you are truly pathetic. :doh:

DID YOU READ THE LONE RANGER'S ESSAY?

We already have real proof of how the eye works. We have so much proof that we understand it down to the atomic level.

Moreover, did you ever read or respond to Kael's post? As I pointed out to you more than a week ago, Lessans does not have a theory. He has an incomprehensible assertion. It's some gobbledygook about "a screen" of "undeniable substance."

What does that mean? Where is the screen?

Is the eye like a movie screen, and there are little projectors located in the optic nerve that are projecting moving images on the screen of the eye from the back of the head? Is that what he means?

If so, he's wrong!

If the above is not what he means, then what does he mean? :popcorn:

The optic nerve is is afferent. This is a known, documented, demonstrated fact. This known fact alone completely destroys Lessans' claim, whatever his claim is, because he himself never gave a coherent explanation of what he meant!
Reply With Quote
  #1982  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:58 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
[That's what he meant when he said light is a condition of sight. Why can't you get that into your brain that he never said we didn't need light to see??? I need a time out. :(
:foocl:

Why can't I get something into my brain? This, from the likes of you?

Yes, you ditz, I know he said that light is a condition of sight. It is a condition of sight -- everyone knows that! What we need to know is, how is it a condition of sight? By what mechanism does light enable us to see?

And we know the answer! The Lone Ranger wrote a long essay about it. Did you read it?

But Lessans disagrees with known facts. So pray enlighten us, peacegirl, if we don't see the way that everyone (except you and Lessans) understands that we see, the way that is factually correct and proven to be correct, then how do we see?

Details, please! :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (04-17-2011)
  #1983  
Old 04-17-2011, 08:06 PM
Awareness's Avatar
Awareness Awareness is offline
Always keep cool.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Netherlands
Gender: Male
Posts: MDCCCVIII
Images: 9
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=peacegirl;936694]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awareness View Post
Quote:
He was separating a screen of undeniable substance from a word that is projected onto a screen of undeniable substance. For your benefit only I will post this one part again. Please read it carefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awareness
We have been taught from the day we were born how to see things, and some body is investigating HIS own bullshit.
Who the hell are you? Please go back to your cave. :popcorn:
Is that all? And why the insult?

You start with finding the answer to all of the worlds problems as in war and crime, which is of course ludicrous and end up trying desperately to show what exactly??

Speaking of light, when you buy clothes,try inspecting them in sunlight instead of artificial light, and you will always know it's true colours.

Until next time.


Quote:
But Lessans disagrees with known facts.
= We have been taught from the day we were born how to see things, and Lessans(whoever that is) is investigating HIS own bullshit
__________________
REMEMBER...........THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN IS ONLY AND JUST ONLY THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN, HOW YOU ARE AS A PERSON MAKES YOU A WHOLE PERSON AND NOTHING ELSE....HOW YOU HAVE SEX , HOW YOU DRESS UP, HOW YOU PRAY only gives away your hobbies

HOW YOU ARE AS A PERSON IS THE MASTER !!
Reply With Quote
  #1984  
Old 04-17-2011, 08:14 PM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
So pray enlighten us, peacegirl, if we don't see the way that everyone (except you and Lessans) understands that we see, the way that is factually correct and proven to be correct, then how do we see?

Details, please! :popcorn:
You see ignorantly :offended:

And we need to do further empirical studies to demonstrate this mathematical certainty!

--J.D.

P.S. She still does not get how an eclipse sinks her.
Reply With Quote
  #1985  
Old 04-17-2011, 08:37 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Hey, peacegirl, if I said to you, "oxygen is a condition of staying alive," I would have said something true, right?

But wouldn't you be the least bit curious to know how and why "oxygen is a condition of staying alive"?

So, peacegirl, how and why, according to you and Lessans, is light a condition of seeing? :popcorn: How, specifically, does vision work, according to his royal highness who rejects the (correct) view of science? :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
  #1986  
Old 04-17-2011, 08:53 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCXLV
Images: 8
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Light is a necessary condition. That's how we are able to see what's out there in the real world. But the object seen because of the light is not carried in the light away from the object which the light is reflecting off of. A camera uses light to take a picture of an object or event. It does not take a picture of the light without the object.
This makes no sense, as in I can't even parse this to guess what you are trying to say.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #1987  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:11 PM
Awareness's Avatar
Awareness Awareness is offline
Always keep cool.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Netherlands
Gender: Male
Posts: MDCCCVIII
Images: 9
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Sight is nothing Peacegirl, when you talk about smell, because it is more different in a nother dimension. The air has then a sweet but appealing kind of smell.
But if you walk in the kitchen, you smell as though the food is half rotten.
If you walk in a discotheque or bar, you smell a kind of almonds smell.
Or feeling somebody's heart beat at a distance:popcorn:
Touch; you can touch your hands while not even touching.
and feel a sort of a aero cushion in between.


That's one thing, is that blind people are more in touch with life, than some people who can see.
__________________
REMEMBER...........THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN IS ONLY AND JUST ONLY THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN, HOW YOU ARE AS A PERSON MAKES YOU A WHOLE PERSON AND NOTHING ELSE....HOW YOU HAVE SEX , HOW YOU DRESS UP, HOW YOU PRAY only gives away your hobbies

HOW YOU ARE AS A PERSON IS THE MASTER !!

Last edited by Awareness; 04-17-2011 at 11:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1988  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:16 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He was separating a screen of undeniable substance which anything in the real world that exists, from a word that is projected onto a screen of undeniable substance. For your benefit only I will post this one part again. Please read it carefully.
We've all read it carefully peacegirl, a board of very educated people, and we keep telling you it doesn't mean a fucking thing.

Would you therefore care to elaborate? What is this "screen"? Is it a physical structure in the eye? Because if Lessans says that it is, no one has ever found it! :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
  #1989  
Old 04-17-2011, 10:03 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A revolution in thought

To follow up on my previous post. If light doesn't transmit information, then not only is our understanding of how vision works completely wrong, so is a great deal of atomic physics, chemistry, and astronomy.

Some ways in which light conveys information:


When white light passes through a cold gas, the gas absorbs some wavelengths of light while allowing others to pass through. Which wavelengths of light pass through and which are absorbed is a function of the configurations of electrons in the atoms, molecules, or ions of the gas.

Thus, as light passes through a (relatively) cold gas, distinctive absorption lines are produced. These absorption lines are as unique and distinctive to each element and compound as are individual human fingerprints. (Rather moreso, actually; the distinctive absorption lines of a particular element are much more distinctive and uniquely-identifiable than are individual human fingerprints.)

This is how astronomers can identify the chemical makeup of distant stars. It's a simple matter of examining the stars' spectra and noting which distinctive absorption lines are present.



If a gas is heated to incandescence (that is, it's glowing), it not coincidentally emits the same wavelengths of light that it absorbs when cold. Thus, by examining the emission spectrum of a heated gas, you can determine its identity. Pretty-much anyone who has taken a college-level chemistry course has used this technique to identify an unknown substance.



If white light is shone on an opaque substance, then the intensity with which it reflects the different wavelengths of light is a function of the substance's composition. Accordingly, one can identify a given substance by shining light on it and then examining how strongly it absorbs and reflects the different wavelengths.



Some specific examples:

Have you ever wondered why the element "helium" is called helium? "Helium" comes from "Helios," a Greek Sun god. That's because helium was discovered on the Sun more than 30 years before it was discovered here on Earth. Astronomers noted absorption lines for an unknown element in the Sun's spectrum and named it "helium" -- because at the time, it was known to exist on the Sun, but not on Earth.


Absorption lines for hydrogen and helium in the Sun's spectrum.


Emission nebulae are clouds of glowing gas in space. We can identify the chemicals that make up these nebulae by examining their emission spectra.


The emission spectrum of several gases.
Note that neon (Ne) lights are red because most of the light emitted by incandescent neon is in the red portion of the spectrum. Sodium (Na) lights, in contrast, produce a distinctive yellow color, since almost all of the light that incandescent sodium emits is in the yellow portion of the spectrum. Mercury (Hg) lights, on the other hand, emit much more light in the green and blue portion of the spectrum, but almost none in the red part of the spectrum.




The Orion Nebula. The dominant red color is due to emission of light by hydrogen gas. Analysis of the light from the nebula indicates that it is mostly made of hydrogen, helium, oxygen and nitrogen. Smaller amounts of neon, silicon, sulfur, magnesium and iron are present.



Since opaque substances will reflect different wavelengths of light differently, we can identify different substances by the unique way that each of them reflects/absorbs light. This is a standard analytical technique in chemistry. Examination of a substance's unique reflectance/absorption spectrum is a simple way to identify it.


The absorption spectra of two forms of hemoglobin. (Hemoglobin is the red pigment in your blood that binds to and transports oxygen.) Note that when it is bound to oxygen hemoglobin does not absorb red light -- that is, it reflects red light. (It's called oxyhemoglobin when bound to oxygen.) So, oxygenated blood is bright red in color, due to the strong reflectance of red light by oxyhemoglobin. When it is not bound to oxygen, hemoglobin absorbs red light much more strongly. (It's called deoxyhemoglobin when not bound to oxygen.) So deoxygenated blood is very dark red in color, because deoxyhemoglobin absorbs red light much more strongly than does oxyhemoglobin.

Thus you can easily estimate the oxygen content of blood simply by noting its color. You don't need specialized equipment to do this, of course; the color difference is easily visible to the eye.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Awareness (04-17-2011), davidm (04-17-2011), Demimonde (04-17-2011), JoeP (04-18-2011), wildernesse (04-18-2011)
  #1990  
Old 04-17-2011, 10:47 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
I do not think I am the one who has a problem misinterpreting what is being said. On the other hand, this thread is full of people stating that you are misinterpreting what people are saying or that you do not understand what other people are saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm trying to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Saying so doesn't make it so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No it doesn't, but there is no reason not to believe me when I say I'm trying. Anyway, this is not about them, it's about misinterpreting what YOU said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
There are nearly 80 pages of reasons why someone shouldn't believe you when you say you are trying. You said you were trying to use the quote function, but there's not a lot of evidence of a sustained attempt.
I am trying to use the quote function, maybe it's not the most efficient way, but at least I'm letting people know who is doing the talking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
We are convinced that the current state of knowledge is complete to a point that the alternative you present is unworkable. You have not provided any reason that the current state of knowledge has gaps, or that your alternative better explains what we already know.
That's what you keep saying, but if his knowledge prevents people from feeling as if they are inferior productions of the human race, I think that's a pretty big reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If that is true, then what is the point of this conversation? Is it to convert me to their way of thinking? Is it to observe someone who is so faith driven that she can't see the truth even if it was staring at her in the face? What is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Well, some people seem to be generally curious as to how Lessans' alternatives would work, seeing as how they are in conflict with what we already know about light and sight. Others have said that they are interested in you and how you react to this conflict. I think it is clear that my goal in this conversation is to get this thread to 100 pages.
Why is this your goal? I'm laughing. ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Whether it's an ad hom attack or not, I don't really care. Calling me a liar and dishonest for whatever reason is not true because that's not who I am. I might not be clear in explaining something, but I am not being deceitful intentionally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Saying so doesn't make it so. If you aren't being intentionally dishonest, I guess that leaves you with some kind of reading comprehension problem. Otherwise, the way you respond to people just doesn't make any sense at all. Of course, you could be a really, really, really good troll, but I don't think that is the simplest explanation. So, I admit I could be wrong about you being stupid, too.
Well thank you. At least I won't be walking around feeling stupid because wildernesse said so. :giggle:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Fine, so we're both guilty of accusing each other of being dishonest which is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Apparently so. Strangely, I don't feel any guilt about it. What does that say about my conscience?
It says that you feel justified in your responses: You either feel justified in your analysis of me, or you feel that you paid for your mistake by admitting that I'm not stupid and making an apology of sorts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Calling me ignorant of how the scientific process works is one thing; calling me stupid and dishonest is quite another. That is a personal attack and and has no place in a serious discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Stating that someone is being dishonest is not really a personal attack when a person is being dishonest. That is being descriptive. You called me dishonest without showing any reason why you did that. I called you dishonest because you keep attributing ideas to me/putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
I still say it wasn't about my being dishonest. It was about misunderstanding what you meant by your words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Saying so doesn't make it so, but if you understood the reasons why conscience needs a justification, you would see that it is so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
What reasons? Can you make a list of the reasons that support the idea [conscience needs a justification]?
That goes back to Lessans' observations. And I said many times that someone who is a sniper might not look like he has a justification, but if you examine his background you will find rage that manifests in this way. It is an indirect retaliatory response. Lessans writes:

In order to hurt another, man must be able to derive
some satisfaction from this, which means that he was previously hurt
and is justified to retaliate, or else he knows, absolutely and positively,
that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they
knew.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I must have missed it. I don't' think there is a conflict with how a camera works. This is from ehow.

The Film

Old cameras work using a special thin strip of film. The film is treated with a special light sensitive chemical that works by causing a chemical change when sunlight strikes the film. The more light exposed to the film, the more exposed the film will become. Too much light can overexpose the film, completely ruining the photo.

The Lens

The lens controls how much light focuses on the film. The lens uses a field of focus to determine how large the image will be on the film, as well as how clear the image will be when developed.

The Shutter

Though the lens focuses the light, it's the shutter that is the actual light control. By using the shutter you can choose a long or short exposure (to light) to control the finished image on the film.

The Iris

The iris works by further reducing the exposure light to the film. The aperture located inside the iris also changes the field of focus to allow objects both close to the camera and far away from the camera to stay clear and sharp. Without the iris parts of the image would remain blurry.


Film Developing

One of the fundamental differences between old film cameras and new digital cameras is the developing process. With digital cameras there is no film. This removes many of the problems associated with exposing the film. In film cameras, the film is developed using chemicals called couplers. As each type of coupler is exposed to the film it creates a different color. The exposure to the couplers also seals the film so that it is no longer sensitive to light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
I will let specious_reasons deal with this part, as it is really addressed to him.
No problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Okay, if it makes you happy, I don't have higher order thinking skills. I think it's completely irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Yes, it is irrelevant. It doesn't make me happy.
So let's move on to why I'm here; Lessans' discovery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Fine, so I'm incapable of higher order thinking, but I can present valuable information, and therefore you are not making an ad hom attack. Can we move on now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Yes.
Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I already said fine. You won wildernesse. I agree that I don't have higher order thinking skills. Since this doesn't mean that I can't present something valuable, then everyone can still take seriously what I am presenting. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Yes, but it does not mean that they will.
You just said that one doesn't need higher order thinking skills in order to present something that could be valuable. Now you're saying it does matter to some people. Which is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
I'm not trying to win anything, but when your responses seem to misconstrue everything that I say it is frustrating. I would rather you understood what I wrote the first time around, so if what I say makes you mad or flustered, why don't you just slow down and wait until you have had a chance to calm down before you respond?
I'm calm. The only time I get defensive is when your responses refer to me as a troll, a machine, a liar, and dishonest. If you didn't attach these labels onto me, I would probably listen a lot more carefully too. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Other than Angakuk asking me to move forward, no one seems to care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
You are right. No one in this thread does truly care about this idea besides you. Do you think that you might be mistaken about whether or not the universe is ready, based on the reactions you have had so far?
I do, but this is a group that believes they are correct based on their scientific criteria. I still think their evauation is sketchy at best. Something is missing and they are too sure of themselves. They really aren't giving Lessans a chance because they won't dare entertain the thought that he could be right. That would make them suckers. So we are stuck at a rock and a hard place. I believe other people might give him the benefit of the doubt, or at least read the book the way Lessans asked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
In any event, you could still move forward and tell us about the idea without requiring us to understand it. Or you could write an article and post it.
Vivisectus went over some of Chapter Two. I don't know what you understand or don't. I don't even know where to begin after all these pages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Davidm is definitely testing my patience. The only reason I keep talking to him is because in between his vitriol he asks some decent questions. I am trying not to ignore people but if it comes to that, I will, although this thread can't go on for much longer. There's nothing left to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
I am fully committed to this thread getting to 100 pages. Here's some advice: stop telling people what you don't like about their posting. It only makes them keep doing it and you look like a whiner. Just ignore what you don't like, and comment on what you feel is important to be addressed.
Do you win some kind of prize for getting to 100 pages, or is this just something you never saw before? :popcorn:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
This is almost entirely nonresponsive to what I wrote, which is pretty funny. Do you believe that it is possible for Lessans to have not realized he was wrong? That is a yes or no question!
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Why not? Even people who are not known to make claims unless they are very sure can be mistaken. People who make mistakes aren't bad people, and it doesn't mean that all of his idea was wrong either.
After 30 years of deep analysis, I doubt very much that he could be wrong. He was not the type of person to hide the fact that he could be wrong either. I don't think he would have ever put something in his book that he wasn't 100% positive about. Afterall, he was a mathematician in his own right and had tremendous analytical ability. I will say, once again, that he could have been wrong regarding the sun exploding instantly. Only time will tell.


* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages.

Last edited by peacegirl; 04-17-2011 at 10:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1991  
Old 04-17-2011, 11:01 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
there is no reason not to believe me when I say I'm trying.

Now this is rich, peacegirl says there is 'no reason not to believe her' and yet from the begining when some-one said that they had read the book but disagreed with it, she has consistantly said she did not believe them. She has repetedly called almost everyone on this thread a lier. I would submit that only a lier would accuse everyone else of lying, trying to redirect attentoin from their own actions.

Peacegirls biggest mistake is to try to present this book and it's ideas on a forum of critical thinkers who can see thru the text of the book and find the falacies. She would have been much better off if she had done a better job of picking the appropriate forum to post on. I'm sure there are forums where the proponents of UFO's, bigfoot, scientology, creationism, and the like. She would probably have sold a lot of books, made a lot of money, and could have started her own little commune with it's own little 'Golden age'.
Doc, paaleeaaseee!! This is so ass*#$*nine, that I refuse to answer.
Reply With Quote
  #1992  
Old 04-17-2011, 11:10 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
They see because of the light that is being reflected; it's just that the light is not carrying the information to the brain. The brain is seeing the object because of light's presence.
BINGO!

Now, think. Lessans said that if the sun were turned on right now, we would see it immediately, but that we would see the person next to us eight minutes later.

Realize how stupid that is. Once you see the source it means the light has arrived to be reflected.
He is giving this example to make sure people understand that the information is not contained in the light. But whether the light needs to impinge on the optic nerve in order to see an object, or whether the optic nerve could be activated because of the properties of light and of the eye itself --- is still an open question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
As soon as the light from the source is entering your eyes, so will light be entering your eyes that is reflected off your neighbor. You will the sun eight minutes after it is turned on, and your neighbor, due to the reflected light that has just arrived, at teh same time!
That's not the example he was giving. He was making a distinction between seeing light immediately, and not being able to see your neighbor because the photons have not arrived yet (it takes 8 minutes, remember) and therefore it's still dark.
Reply With Quote
  #1993  
Old 04-17-2011, 11:11 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's what you keep saying, but if his knowledge prevents people from feeling as if they are inferior productions of the human race, I think that's a pretty big reason.
1. He does not have any knowledge.

2. Fake "science" and pseudophilosophy isn't going to prevent anyone from feeling inferior.

Quote:
I do, but this is a group that believes they are correct based on their scientific criteria. I still think their evauation is sketchy at best.
Sketchy at best? :faint: :freakout:

Good God girl, I ask you again, did you, or did you not, read The Lone Ranger's essay on how we see? It is detailed down to the atomic level, and, as he pointed out, it was just an overview. There are fat textbooks written about this stuff.

Quote:
Something is missing and they are too sure of themselves.
Really? What?

Quote:
They really aren't giving Lessans a chance because they won't dare entertain the thought that he could be right. That would make them suckers.
Yes, we are back to your typical slander, the way that the scientific community was slandered by Lessans. People have read what he said. It's wrong.

He had his chance, and he blew it.

Oh, and see my posts above, asking for details about these "screens of undeniable substance."
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Doctor X (04-18-2011)
  #1994  
Old 04-17-2011, 11:13 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's not the example he was giving. He was making a distinction between seeing light immediately, and not being able to see your neighbor because the photons have not arrived yet (it takes 8 minutes, remember) and therefore it's still dark.
Holy shit! What are you talking about!

He said that if the sun were turned on NOW, people would see it immediately, in real time, but would not see their neighbors for eight minutes.

What does that even mean?

It's so incohrent, it's not even wrong. It's insane.
Reply With Quote
  #1995  
Old 04-17-2011, 11:13 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
To follow up on my previous post. If light doesn't transmit information, then not only is our understanding of how vision works completely wrong, so is a great deal of atomic physics, chemistry, and astronomy.

Some ways in which light conveys information:


When white light passes through a cold gas, the gas absorbs some wavelengths of light while allowing others to pass through. Which wavelengths of light pass through and which are absorbed is a function of the configurations of electrons in the atoms, molecules, or ions of the gas.

Thus, as light passes through a (relatively) cold gas, distinctive absorption lines are produced. These absorption lines are as unique and distinctive to each element and compound as are individual human fingerprints. (Rather moreso, actually; the distinctive absorption lines of a particular element are much more distinctive and uniquely-identifiable than are individual human fingerprints.)

This is how astronomers can identify the chemical makeup of distant stars. It's a simple matter of examining the stars' spectra and noting which distinctive absorption lines are present.



If a gas is heated to incandescence (that is, it's glowing), it not coincidentally emits the same wavelengths of light that it absorbs when cold. Thus, by examining the emission spectrum of a heated gas, you can determine its identity. Pretty-much anyone who has taken a college-level chemistry course has used this technique to identify an unknown substance.



If white light is shone on an opaque substance, then the intensity with which it reflects the different wavelengths of light is a function of the substance's composition. Accordingly, one can identify a given substance by shining light on it and then examining how strongly it absorbs and reflects the different wavelengths.



Some specific examples:

Have you ever wondered why the element "helium" is called helium? "Helium" comes from "Helios," a Greek Sun god. That's because helium was discovered on the Sun more than 30 years before it was discovered here on Earth. Astronomers noted absorption lines for an unknown element in the Sun's spectrum and named it "helium" -- because at the time, it was known to exist on the Sun, but not on Earth.


Absorption lines for hydrogen and helium in the Sun's spectrum.


Emission nebulae are clouds of glowing gas in space. We can identify the chemicals that make up these nebulae by examining their emission spectra.


The emission spectrum of several gases.
Note that neon (Ne) lights are red because most of the light emitted by incandescent neon is in the red portion of the spectrum. Sodium (Na) lights, in contrast, produce a distinctive yellow color, since almost all of the light that incandescent sodium emits is in the yellow portion of the spectrum. Mercury (Hg) lights, on the other hand, emit much more light in the green and blue portion of the spectrum, but almost none in the red part of the spectrum.




The Orion Nebula. The dominant red color is due to emission of light by hydrogen gas. Analysis of the light from the nebula indicates that it is mostly made of hydrogen, helium, oxygen and nitrogen. Smaller amounts of neon, silicon, sulfur, magnesium and iron are present.



Since opaque substances will reflect different wavelengths of light differently, we can identify different substances by the unique way that each of them reflects/absorbs light. This is a standard analytical technique in chemistry. Examination of a substance's unique reflectance/absorption spectrum is a simple way to identify it.


The absorption spectra of two forms of hemoglobin. (Hemoglobin is the red pigment in your blood that binds to and transports oxygen.) Note that when it is bound to oxygen hemoglobin does not absorb red light -- that is, it reflects red light. (It's called oxyhemoglobin when bound to oxygen.) So, oxygenated blood is bright red in color, due to the strong reflectance of red light by oxyhemoglobin. When it is not bound to oxygen, hemoglobin absorbs red light much more strongly. (It's called deoxyhemoglobin when not bound to oxygen.) So deoxygenated blood is very dark red in color, because deoxyhemoglobin absorbs red light much more strongly than does oxyhemoglobin.

Thus you can easily estimate the oxygen content of blood simply by noting its color. You don't need specialized equipment to do this, of course; the color difference is easily visible to the eye.
Very interesting post!
Reply With Quote
  #1996  
Old 04-17-2011, 11:15 PM
Awareness's Avatar
Awareness Awareness is offline
Always keep cool.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Netherlands
Gender: Male
Posts: MDCCCVIII
Images: 9
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote]Lessans writes:

Quote:
In order to hurt another, man must be able to derive
some satisfaction from this,
In order to hurt another, man must know him or her.

Deriving satisfaction is because he or she only cries for him or herself


Quote:
which means that he was previously hurt
and is justified to retaliate
After being hurt by another you are ONLY justified to leave him or her.
Retaliate is for chicken gladiators


Quote:
or else he knows, absolutely and positively,
that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they
knew.
It is absolutely ignorant to worry about opinions from strangers.
__________________
REMEMBER...........THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN IS ONLY AND JUST ONLY THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN, HOW YOU ARE AS A PERSON MAKES YOU A WHOLE PERSON AND NOTHING ELSE....HOW YOU HAVE SEX , HOW YOU DRESS UP, HOW YOU PRAY only gives away your hobbies

HOW YOU ARE AS A PERSON IS THE MASTER !!

Last edited by Awareness; 04-17-2011 at 11:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1997  
Old 04-17-2011, 11:19 PM
Demimonde's Avatar
Demimonde Demimonde is offline
an angry unicorn or a non-murdering leprechaun
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edge of Society
Gender: Female
Posts: VMMCDLXI
Blog Entries: 5
Images: 28
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Maybe that's true davidm, but it could also be that his observation had some merit. I'm not going to lie and say I AM SURE because I'm not.
No, peacegirl. You have repeatedly said that this is an undeniable, scientific, mathimatical truth. That it is fact that if we only understood we could see. So the above statement reeks.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awareness
We have been taught from the day we were born how to see things, and some body is investigating HIS own bullshit.
Who the hell are you? Please go back to your cave. :popcorn:
He is a valued contributor to the board who makes a hell of a lot more sense than you.

Also, why the popcorn? You insult a poster and then post the audience bit after telling him to leave?

If I had any question in my mind that you were not a troll, it is dispelled now.
__________________
:boobkicker:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Awareness (04-18-2011), JoeP (04-18-2011), livius drusus (04-22-2011)
  #1998  
Old 04-17-2011, 11:25 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Light is a necessary condition. That's how we are able to see what's out there in the real world. But the object seen because of the light is not carried in the light away from the object which the light is reflecting off of. A camera uses light to take a picture of an object or event. It does not take a picture of the light without the object.
Let's look at this another way.

White light (such as that produced by the Sun) is "white" because it contains all the various wavelengths of visible light. Different substances absorb and reflect different wavelengths of light, depending on the structure of the atoms and molecules that make them up. A molecule that absorbs specific wavelengths of light and reflects others is called a pigment.

This, of course, is nothing that's surprising to anyone, as it's 5th-grade science at best, and is very well-tested and well-confirmed.


Now, let's shine some white light on a leaf. Green plants contain two variants of a pigment known as chlorophyll.


Here's the absorption spectrum for chlorophyll. Note that it absorbs light in the blue and red portion of the spectrum, but reflects light in the green portion of the spectrum. So if I shine white light on a leaf, it absorbs the red and blue light, while reflecting the green light. From this fact, I can discern the chemical makeup of the leaf.

How is the light reflected (compared to the light that's absorbed) by the leaf not conveying information?
It is conveying information, but it's in reference to the actual leaf. You aren't getting the information just from the light. It's in combination with how the leaf reflects and absorbs the light that allows you to identify the chemical make up of the leaf. There is no conflict here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Indeed, comparing the light that is reflected by a substance to the light that is absorbed by it is a big part of chemistry. It's one of the most common ways by which substances are identified.
I am in total agreement. :)
Reply With Quote
  #1999  
Old 04-17-2011, 11:36 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Hey, peacegirl, if I said to you, "oxygen is a condition of staying alive," I would have said something true, right?

But wouldn't you be the least bit curious to know how and why "oxygen is a condition of staying alive"?

So, peacegirl, how and why, according to you and Lessans, is light a condition of seeing? :popcorn: How, specifically, does vision work, according to his royal highness who rejects the (correct) view of science? :popcorn:
David, I know there will need to be empirical proof for anyone to take him seriously. If these tests can't be performed, he is sunk. It could be a test to determine how a baby begins to focus, or other empirical tests. If there is evidence that Lessans was onto something, then scientists could try to figure out how sight occurs. In other words, if the optic nerve is completely afferent, there would have to be some other mechanism at work and this is what would be investigated. But I know right now you are taking all of this as a big joke. I don't even know why I am responding.
Reply With Quote
  #2000  
Old 04-17-2011, 11:42 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Hey, peacegirl, if I said to you, "oxygen is a condition of staying alive," I would have said something true, right?

But wouldn't you be the least bit curious to know how and why "oxygen is a condition of staying alive"?

So, peacegirl, how and why, according to you and Lessans, is light a condition of seeing? :popcorn: How, specifically, does vision work, according to his royal highness who rejects the (correct) view of science? :popcorn:
David, I know there will need to be empirical proof for anyone to take him seriously. If these tests can't be performed, he is sunk. It could be a test to determine how a baby begins to focus, or other empirical tests. If there is evidence that Lessans was onto something, then scientists could try to figure out how sight occurs. In other words, if the optic nerve is completely afferent, there would have to be some other mechanism at work and this is what would be investigated. But I know right now you are taking all of this as a big joke. I don't even know why I am responding.
Test for what? What, exactly, is he claiming? Please see my previous posts asking for detailed explanations of this "screen of undeniable substance" stuff.

The optic nerve is afferent. In the "sketchy" essay on how sight works written by the Lone Ranger, which is nearly 40 pages long and includes detailed diagrams, it was explained how we see. So there is no need for scientists to "try to figure out how sight occurs." We already know how sight occurs, and the Lone Ranger explained it. :doh:
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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 09:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.62686 seconds with 14 queries