Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
The point that needs to be stressed, though -- and this is why, with all respect, it puzzles me why you and LadyShea keeping going round the mulberry bush with her on this -- is that it just isn't true that we see in real time. That is the point that needs to be stressed. Since we know we don't see in real time from examples by now too numerous to number, why discuss her nonsensical attempts to account for real-time seeing? There is no real-time seeing, as everyone but peacegirl knows, so if anything what should be done is her feet should be held to the fire on explaining the Mars and Jupiter's moons examples, among many others.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You could do that, but it won't work any better than anything else. She'll just dig her toes in and insist upon mysterious unknown factors despite being unable to specify what they are or how they might help. Nothing anyone says is going to have any impact on her at all. The delusion is just too strong, and she'll just blatantly ignore anything which is too difficult for her to face up to. You could try pressing her on how appealing to such unknown factors renders her position entirely immune to evidence, but she's ignored that twice already.
It all comes down to which aspect of her lunacy fascinates you more. Personally, I'd like to see what would happen if she were to make a serious attempt to develop a consistent model of even just the most basic aspects of efferent vision. But she has no interest in doing that, likely because she fears discovering just how implausible it really is. I'd also like to see her try to show where Lessans allegedly supports his presuppositions about conscience. But she won't do that because at some level she knows there are no such examples to be found. I'd also be interested in a discussion of his third non-discovery, but she seems to already be aware that this aspect of his work is even more ridiculous than the first two non-discoveries.
|
I have come to the conclusion that you are all too smart to give up on these discoveries. That's why you're sticking with me even if you don't see the validity of them quite yet. Spacemonkey, when did I say that I have no interest in attempting to show where Lessans supports his presuppositions (which word I have a problem with because it sounds like he started out with an assumption as to how the world works before he proved it, which is wrong) about conscience, and when did I ever show you that I wasn't trying to create a model of sight that would explain what is actually happening in reality? After all, isn't the truth what we're all searching for?