A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But Peacegirl thinks there can be light at the film/retina which has either instantly come into existence there somehow matching the real-time properties of objects as it does so, or which has instantaneously teleported there from the surface of the object being seen or photographed. She doesn't agree that the light at the film/retina must have travelled to get there, or that it will represent dated information once present.

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.

[LadyShea]

Because I think that teleportation or dual location is easier for her to understand than real time vs delayed time.

She doesn't think time exists except as a human construct anyway and doesn't seem to understand the relation between time and distance at all.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl seems to think that a lens is necessary in order to see. Since she swears that nothing she is proposing at all conflicts with optics then the lens must be forming an image. A lens forms an image by bending the path of light that passes through it. It does this by a process called refraction. Refraction is what happens to light when it changes speed going from one material to another. The more the difference in the speed of light between the air and the glass of lens the more the light will be bent and the shorter the focal length of the lens. Now here is the thing. In order for refraction to work the light has to be travelling at different speeds as it traverses the space from object to image. It can't teleport because it must pass through the lens to bend and it has to be travelling at a finite speed in order that it travel at different speeds when it crosses from air to glass and glass to air.

So there is no way that given that a lens is necessary to form an image by satisfying the physics of optics and still be consistent with any of the mechanisms that peacegirl has postulated for efferent vision.

Good luck getting peacegirl to understand any of it let alone agree with it.

Moreover, gravitational lensing shows you get different images of the same object as it was at different times! This is IMPOSSIBLE under her real-time seeing. Of course, this has been brought up with her. Her response?

[Spacemonkey]

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.

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.

Nothing is going to get through to her because no degree of blatant dishonesty, avoidance, or plain nonsensical absurdity on her part will ever be less acceptable to her than acceptance of the fact that her father was wrong. I don't think she's unaware of how she keeps lying, avoiding, and making up nonsense. It's just that her faith is more important to her than anything else.

[Dragar]

The entertainment value has somewhat faded for me, too. It was curious to see how she'd react when faced with facts too obvious to deny that Lessans was completely wrong on a point, but after playing the 'I don't know but I'm sure magic did it!' card a few times, even the intellectual puzzle of figuring out entertaining, novel, or just the simple cleanest falsification doesn't hold any further appeal.

I don't think it's impossible she could ever realise she's clearly wrong, but that was never really an expectation of mine.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

We could have read several books the caliber of Briane Greene's The Elegant Universe in the time we've taken to hover over this thread, and we would have been much better off. There are no more excuses.

Lol you couldn't just say "a good book" could you?

And in the time you took to tell us buffoon-prodding buffoons that we are buffoons, you could have read several excellent poems!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Yes, seeing requires a lens. Just as taking a photo requires a lens. In a camera the lens forms an image from the light moving towards the film.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

This is an inward process or an afferent process. Light doesn't move from the film towards the object to form an image. That would be efferent. It's just a simple matter of direction. It is trivial. Like knowing how to use quotes. A moderately intelligent person would have figured out the difference by now both on the direction of light and the use of quotes.

Except for the insane Lessans family. You can repeat it thousands of times, and they just won't get it.

This has nothing to do with light. Efferent vision has to do with the brain. It is more than trivial. It is exceedingly significant. This is a perfect example of how dumb you really are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, picture that you're looking at an large object in space, and picture the (P) reflected light at your retina. That's the physical location. Your retina or the film interacts with the (P) light as you focus on the object. If the camera is focused on an object but the objects surrounding it are not in focus, that is the mirror image that will be at the film. Some of the photograph will be in focus and some of it will be blurred.

I think the word (P) reflect is still confusing people. You have to imagine the object absorbing certain wavelengths so when we look at it, the remaining non-absorbed light reveals the object; it does not send the object into space/time which involves traveling photons. That is why it matches up with our eyes, in real time, as a mirror image. There is nothing traveling at all, which the word "reflect" implies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you are offering is teleportation to the retina or camera film. That is not plausible nor do you offer any explanation as to how this magic happens.

Unless the mirror image is made of matter and actually exists as or in a physical location in space, it cannot be physically interacted with by photons, and therefore cannot explain how we can photograph the sun at noon if it was just turned on at noon and therefore there are no photons on Earth.

You're incorrect LadyShea. As I just wrote in the previous post, take out the word "reflect" from the discussion and maybe it will help you see how the efferent process allows for this interaction with the light without the photons having to travel to Earth to reach the eyes (or film), and therefore it is not violating the laws of physics. This is the last attempt I am making to try to get you to understand this process, but I don't think it's going to penetrate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you don't understand the mechanism regarding the actual photons interacting with the film. I've asked you simple questions about their past history and you've alternately told me that they were previously (i) at the film, (ii) at the object, (iii) travelling, and (iv) non-existent. You have no model at all, and are just making this up as you go. You don't have the faintest idea of how any of this is meant to work.

I do know how this is meant to work, but you are getting very mixed up by your idea of how light is reflected. No (P) light is actually reflected; it is there when we look at the object. The only light that is reflected is (N) light and that is the light that is everywhere, bounces off of everything, allows us to have all of our technologies, and travels at the finite speed of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You stated he did this odd thing, feeling it was important enough to mention...which is a weird detail to comment on in the first place.

I commented on it's oddness and asked why he did such a strange thing. That's it. That's all that happened.

Why can't you just answer even a simple question like this?

I brought this up to show that he was trying to clarify his writing in this audio. The book doesn't have these clarifications. I was just letting people know that if they had his book, it would be different than the audio in this respect.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say that he didn't read it. I said that he didn't buy it.

He didn't do either. There is no reference in the book to force of any kind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The hologram is a picture. And you don't need a lens to take it.

You need a lens to see a hologram. That's all I'm saying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

What is presentism?

Presentism is the metaphysical thesis that whatever exists, exists now, in the present. The past is no more. The future is not yet. Either something exists now, or it does not exist, period.

http://www.alanrhoda.net/papers/Pres...0and%20God.pdf

I don't know if the rest of this .pdf applies to what Lessans is talking about. Here is Lessans' explanation regarding this misconception in his chapter on death, but I'm not going to get further into this chapter, especially with the antagonism people feel toward him.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: Our Posterity pp. 488-489

Now to solve this apparently unsolvable problem, it is first
necessary to establish certain undeniable facts. Therefore, let me
begin by asking you if there is such a reality as the past? Does this
word symbolize something that is a part of the real world?
“Of course…yesterday is the past, today is the present, and
tomorrow is the future. And this is a mathematical relation.”
It is true that yesterday was Thursday, and the day before was
Wednesday, and there isn’t any person alive who will disagree. But
this does not prove whether the word past is an accurate symbol. Can
you take it, like you can the words apple and pear, and hang it up on
something so I can look through it at the real McCoy? When does
the present become the past? I actually want you to demonstrate how
the present slips into the past. That cannot be done, by God Himself.

The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such
thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation
between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I
leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something
that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two
points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present. I
know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction
of a second ago, and that I am still talking.

The word 'past' is
obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because
it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to
the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do
something, and because you are also conscious of space you perceive
that as you traverse a point from here to there, what is left behind as
you travel is called the past and your destination is the future. Here
lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it
humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future
when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to
describe something that has no existence in the real world. Socrates
didn’t live in the past — he lived in the present, although our
recollection of him (which is in the present) allows us to think back to
this time period.

The reason we say that Socrates lived in the past is
because this particular individual is no longer here. But is it possible
for you to say that God or the sun existed in the past? Does anyone
ever sleep in the past; does the sun ever shine in the past; is it possible
for you to do anything in the past? If you were sitting up on a high
cloud these last ten thousand years, never asleep, as is the sun, you
would have watched Socrates in the present, just as you are watching
me write this book in the present. In order for me to prove what
seems impossible, it is absolutely necessary that I de-confuse the mind
of man so we can communicate.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're incorrect LadyShea. As I just wrote in the previous post, take out the word "reflect" from the discussion and maybe it will help you see how the efferent process allows for this interaction with the light without the photons having to travel to Earth to reach the eyes (or film), and therefore it is not violating the laws of physics. This is the last attempt I am making to try to get you to understand this process, but I don't think it's going to penetrate.

I am not talking about reflection. No reflection in Lessans example

How can we photograph the sun at noon if it was just turned on at noon and therefore there are no photons on Earth?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not talking about reflection. No reflection in Lessans example

How can we photograph the sun at noon if it was just turned on at noon and therefore there are no photons on Earth?

By the available light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

she thinks "tons of anger" would be spewed over a discussion of presentism, which she never even heard of until she learned about it from me.

Silly doofus she is. Her lies and dishonesty are what bring sharp reactions, nothing else. We laugh at the buffoon Lessans.

Presentism is just another word for seeing in the present. It's not mysterious. I was just using David's words, but it doesn't change a thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

The central premise is, wherever you are, you are present.

Very true. You get one point out of a thousand. Great record, keep it up NA and you will win a Nobel prize.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Presentism is the philosophical thesis that only present objects, events and people are actual. It stands in distinction to eternalism, which is the thesis that there are actual non-present objects.

IOW, the presentist maintains that only "now" is real; the future will become real but is not yet; and the past used to be real, but no longer exists.

The eternalist maintains that all locations in time exist, in the same way that all locations in space exist. This makes "now" an indexical, like "here." Wherever and whenever you are, automatically, is "here and now," but all other locations in time and space also exist. Thus Socrates exists; he just does not exist "now" as we who are conversing count "now."

There is a huge literature on this stuff and it's quite fascinating. Suffice it to say that the theory of relativity provides strong support for eternalism, and makes presentism almost certainly false.

You're right, this literature is wonderful for the science fiction buff. It would make a great fabricated movie. Are you a movie producer by any chance?

[LadyShea]

Lots of actual science sure seems like fiction, but it's not. They have actual cyborg rats, rat neural cells in glass dishes that run little robots. Take a look at Quantum physics. Relativity is certainly not science fiction.

Your not understanding it doesn't make it bullshit.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By the available light.

The available photons are at the sun, not on Earth where they need to be to contact and be absorbed by camera film. It is noon, the sun was just turned on. No photons on Earth to touch camera film.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lol you couldn't just say "a good book" could you?

And in the time you took to tell us buffoon-prodding buffoons that we are buffoons, you could have read several excellent poems!

Notice my usage of the term "we" when referring to buffoons, you buffoon. I'm criticizing myself just as much as anyone else.

And I refer specifically to Greene's book because it is relevant to one of the subject-matters at hand, which is physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because I think that teleportation or dual location is easier for her to understand than real time vs delayed time.

She doesn't think time exists except as a human construct anyway and doesn't seem to understand the relation between time and distance at all.

Bullshit!!! Don't speak for me LadyShea. I understand time just like you do, but there are certain aspects of what we believe is occurring that is wrong. Don't throw darts at me until you really know the truth, otherwise you are the worst kind of fraud because you represent science. It makes me feel extremely sad.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The available photons are at the sun, not on Earth where they need to be to contact and be absorbed by camera film. It is noon, the sun was just turned on. No photons on Earth to touch camera film.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO LADYSHEA, GET OVER IT ALREADY. YOU'RE COMPLETELY WRONG BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE FIRST THING ABOUT EFFERENT VISION, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FINITE SPEED OF LIGHT.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Moreover, gravitational lensing shows you get different images of the same object as it was at different times! This is IMPOSSIBLE under her real-time seeing. Of course, this has been brought up with her. Her response?

I did not say that David, and you know it. Stop trying to defend something that is impossible to prove. We have to start on Earth to know what's going in Space. Is there something you don't understand??? Of course there is: Whatever goes against David's precious worldview must be wrong.