Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Peacegirl, you seem not to have answered the question below. Why is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Just answer the question, Peacegirl. Seriously. Just answer it.
4. Did the light present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken previously travel from the object to get there?
Lessans' claims do not make sense. As demonstrated by the fact that you can't answer simple questions like the one above without constantly contradicting yourself.
|
|
No David, that's not how this knowledge was discovered. You can't use this logic, or else you will get trapped by your limited understanding of how the brain works. |
Whereas having next to no knowledge about science, physics, philosophy, mathematics and psychology made Lessans perfectly suited to unilaterally re-write all those fields with poorly or unsupported claims.
Every time I think you cannot be any funnier you surprise me, Peacegirl. |
He did not rewrite physics, mathematics, science, philosophy, or psychology for that matter. He added to it. The only thing that changes is that we see in the present tense, not in the past tense. Everything else remains the same, which I've said numerous times. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
No, what you have done is completely ignore the fact that that is impossible by simply declaring that it is possible. Like when you declared that sight does not carry information - another brilliant one! - or your vague mumbling about lenses that magically focus outward. Anything, no matter how humorously feeble, to allow you to hang on to this idea.
|
Light is a wavelength, and that wavelength has information, but when it strikes the retina it doesn't get transduced into signals that are then interpreted by the brain. That's where the fallacy lies if Lessans' claims are correct.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Just like you refuse to simply say "I don't know" when I ask you to tell me what it is that lenses redirect in efferent sight! It is another giant hole in the book. But that would mean admitting there is something wrong with it, and you just won't allow yourself to do so, even though you know damn well you are just flailing, waffling and stringing mumbo-jumbo together.
|
Just because Lessans didn't go into detail regarding the mechanisms involved in efferent sight doesn't make his observations irrational. There is no hole in the book. Lenses do what they are suppose to do. They allow us to focus the light so we can see the world through the window of the eyes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Because you do not know how the hell efferent sight works either - no-one does! It is simply claimed in the book and just left there, because your father simply did not realize he was contradicting just about everything we know about physics... down to causality itself, which is funny as hell as he based his silly system on determinism.
|
I said all along that his observations came indirectly. He didn't go out looking to prove that we see efferently. He was not a physicist, but he didn't have to be. Because he wasn't in the field it allowed him to look at this from a different perspective. There is nothing silly about creating a better world for all humanity.