A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

I'm stopping here until I know where people are at. There is a lot of meat in this chapter so to rush through it will ruin any chances for understanding. Does anyone have any questions? I'm not asking people to dispute what he's saying. I just want to know if they understand what is being said.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm stopping here until I know where people are at. There is a lot of meat in this chapter so to rush through it will ruin any chances for understanding. Does anyone have any questions? I'm not asking people to dispute what he's saying. I just want to know if they understand what is being said.

Yes. I have a question. Where does any of what you just copypasted support any of the points I listed?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What we can see, and when, and at what distance is all explained by the scientific field called optics.

Your use of "should" is completely irrational.

Except when we do via technology




Now, about the Moons of Jupiter?

Optics doesn't explain why we don't see an image from an object that is out of range but is reflecting light. The word "should" is perfectly rational. Based on afferent sight, we should be able to resolve an image from light without the object having to be in view. But this never happens.

Optics is the branch of physics which involves the behavior and properties of light, including its interactions with matter and the construction of instruments that use or detect it.[1] Optics usually describes the behavior of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light. Because light is an electromagnetic wave, other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays, microwaves, and radio waves exhibit similar properties.[1]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. I have a question. Where does any of what you just copypasted support any of the points I listed?

I just started and you're already badgering me. Your patience level is nil. Since you're so knowledgeable, why don't you state the main points. That's what teachers do before moving on, so they can build on that foundation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Optics doesn't explain why we don't see an image from an object that is out of range but is reflecting light.

Yes, it does. I explained this to you repeatedly in the last thread, and you just kept ignoring the explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Based on afferent sight, we should be able to resolve an image from light without the object having to be in view. But this never happens.

The very post you just replied to contained an image resolved from light showing objects that were not in view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]Optics is the branch of physics which involves the behavior and properties of light, including its interactions with matter and the construction of instruments that use or detect it.[1] Optics usually describes the behavior of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light. Because light is an electromagnetic wave, other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays, microwaves, and radio waves exhibit similar properties.[1]

Why do you keep copypasting unattributed material like this? Are you under the impression that people will think you understand what you are quoting?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just started and you're already badgering me. Your patience level is nil. Since you're so knowledgeable, why don't you state the main points. That's what teachers do before moving on, so they can build on that foundation.

You asked if anyone has questions, and that seemed like a pretty damn relevant one. Why won't you answer? Where does any of what you just copypasted support any of the points I listed?

[LadyShea]

Optics doesn't explain why we don't see an image from an object that is out of range but is reflecting light.

Yes, yes optics does in fact explain that.

Based on afferent sight, we should be able to resolve an image from light without the object having to be in view. But this never happens.

What makes you think that? Do you understand all the factors in optics?

[LadyShea]

Why on Earth do you have to post the whole chapter? Can you not use small excerpts to answer targeted questions or address specific points? Why do we have to wade through a wall of text to find pertinent info?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it does. I explained this to you repeatedly in the last thread, and you just kept ignoring the explanation.

The very post you just replied to contained an image resolved from light showing objects that were not in view.

That's what the dispute is about. You're just repeating what the afferent model of sight states, you're not proving it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]Optics is the branch of physics which involves the behavior and properties of light, including its interactions with matter and the construction of instruments that use or detect it.[1] Optics usually describes the behavior of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light. Because light is an electromagnetic wave, other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays, microwaves, and radio waves exhibit similar properties.[1]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why do you keep copypasting unattributed material like this? Are you under the impression that people will think you understand what you are quoting?

Because you said that the field of optics explains the apparent discrepancy we are having. The claim that objects must be in range to be seen, and the competing claim that we don't need objects in our visual range to be seen. All we need is the reflected light to see the image of the object. But I don't see any explanation that solves this dilemma.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the object is within the range of the camera's lens, then that means that the light necessary to take a photograph is already present at the film, so the photograph is not dated. The same holds true for the eye. If the object is within the range of the eye's lens, then that means that the light necessary to see the object in real time (not dated time) is already at the retina. Explaining efferent vision in terms of the afferent model is not going to work because it will be inconsistent. I still maintain that we see in the present because light is not transduced into signals that are then interpreted by the brain.

That doesn't answer the question. And I'm not asking you to explain anything in terms of the afferent model. I know the light is already present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken. I am asking you about where this light came from before that point in time. Let me slightly rephrase to make this clear:

4. Did the light present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken previously travel from the object to get there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why on Earth do you have to post the whole chapter? Can you not use small excerpts to answer targeted questions or address specific points? Why do we have to wade through a wall of text to find pertinent info?

Because this is the main chapter, and you can see what's already happened. Spacemonkey thinks Lessans did not support his observations, and I am saying that he did. He accurately describes how conscience works. He doesn't presuppose that there is a God given standard of right and wrong. If you already read it, all I'm asking you to do is to skim the text and take out what you think are the main points. Then we can have a basis to move forward. If you don't want to do it, maybe someone else will. Or we can just discuss these few pages. It's not like I'm giving you a tome to read.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That doesn't answer the question. And I'm not asking you to explain anything in terms of the afferent model. I know the light is already present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken. I am asking you about where this light came from before that point in time. Let me slightly rephrase to make this clear:

4. Did the light present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken previously travel from the object to get there?

I know what you're asking me. You want me to say that there has to be a time delay if there is an order to the reflected light. The wavelengths that came first would arrive first at the camera, therefore we would not see red, which the object is at this moment; we would see blue. This makes logical sense, but Lessans' claims also makes logical sense when you analyze his explanation. It all comes down to who is right.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what the dispute is about. You're just repeating what the afferent model of sight states, you're not proving it.

No, I'm pointing out that you've already been shown a picture proving exactly what you say never happens. The Hubble picture was resolved from light alone, and shows objects not in view at the time. What part of this do you dispute?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you said that the field of optics explains the apparent discrepancy we are having. The claim that objects must be in range to be seen, and the competing claim that we don't need objects in our visual range to be seen. All we need is the reflected light to see the image of the object. But I don't see any explanation that solves this dilemma.

You've botched your quote tags again. I'm not LadyShea. There is no dilemma on the afferent model. Visual range is perfectly well explained. I can repost the explanation from the other thread if you like.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what you're asking me. You want me to say that there has to be a time delay if there is an order to the reflected light. The wavelengths that came first would arrive first at the camera, therefore we would not see red, which the object is at this moment; we would see blue. This makes sense, but Lessans' claims also make sense when you look at his explanation. It all comes down to who is right.

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.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

cont...Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation

Let me show you
how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.
If someone is not being hurt in any way, is it possible for him to
retaliate or turn the other cheek? Isn’t it obvious that in order to do
either he must first be hurt? But if he is already being hurt and by
turning the other cheek makes matters worse for himself, then he is
given no choice but to retaliate because this is demanded by the laws
of his nature. Here is the source of the confusion. Our basic
principle or corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, call it what you will, is
not going to accomplish the impossible. It is not going to prevent
man from desiring to hurt others when not to makes matters worse
for himself, but it will prevent the desire to strike the very first blow.
Once you have been hurt, it is normal and natural to seek some form
of retaliation for this is a source of satisfaction which is the direction
life is compelled to take. Therefore this knowledge cannot possibly
prevent the hate and blame which man has been compelled to live with
all these years as a consequence of crimes committed and many other
forms of hurt, yet God’s mathematical law cannot be denied for man
is truly not to blame for anything he does notwithstanding, so a still
deeper analysis is required.

Down through history no one has ever
known what it means that man’s will is not free and how it can benefit
the world, but you will be shown the answer very shortly. There is
absolutely no way this new world, a world without war, crime, and all
forms of hurt to man by man can be stopped from coming into
existence. When it will occur, however, depends on when this
knowledge can be brought to light.

We have been growing and developing just like a child from
infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without
passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have
reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going
through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a
shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery
was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because
of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man
responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was
never found if it lies hidden beyond this point? If you recall, Durant
assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free it would
lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other
factors as the cause. “If he committed crimes, society was to blame;
if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine which had slipped a
cog in generating him.” It is also true that if it had not been for the
development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of
right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of
this coming Golden Age.

Yet despite the fact that we have been
brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing
what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law
and order up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of
the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that
has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind
systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of satisfaction,
or this invariable law of God states explicitly, as we perceive these
mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL IS NOT
FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES.
This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the
mathematic corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to
anything after it is done — only before.

“I don’t understand why God’s commandment applies to
something before it is done, and not after. Does this mean you can
blame after a crime has taken place? And doesn’t this go back to the
same problem man has been faced with since time immemorial; how
to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of our
penal code?”

“It is a natural reaction to blame after you’ve been hurt. The
reason it doesn’t apply to anything after it is done — only before —
is because God’s commandment, Thou Shall Not Blame, has the
power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code was
previously necessary as part of our development.” At this juncture, I
shall repeat a passage from Chapter One to remind the reader of
important facts that must be understood before continuing.

To solve this problem of evil with the aid of our enigmatic corollary —
Thou Shall Not Blame — (for this seems mathematically impossible since
it appears that man will always desire something for which blame and
punishment will be necessary), it is extremely important to go through a
de-confusion process regarding words by employing the other scientific fact
revealed to you earlier. Consequently, as was pointed out, and to reveal
this relation, it is an absolutely undeniable observation that man does not
have to commit a crime or do anything to hurt another unless he wants to. As history reveals, even the most severe tortures and the threat of death cannot make him do to others what he makes up his mind not to do. He
is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his
environment and heredity but prefers this action because at that moment
of time he derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a
normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to
another that which he makes up his mind not to do (this is an extremely
crucial point), he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment
of his existence to do everything he does.

This reveals that he has
mathematical control over the former (you can lead a horse to water but
you can’t make him drink) but none over the latter because he must move
in the direction of greater satisfaction. In other words, no one is
compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country
against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes
simply because the alternative is considered worse in his opinion and he
must choose something to do among the various things in his environment
or else commit suicide. Was it possible to make Gandhi and his followers
do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was
judged the lesser of two evils? They were compelled by their desire for
freedom to prefer non-violence, turning the other cheek as a solution to
their problem. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to
do what he did against his will because the alternative was considered
worse, that he really didn’t want to do it but had to (and numerous words
and expressions say this), he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another
is done only because he wants to do it which means that his preference
gave him satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another.

peacegirl, every time you quite Lessans like this you supply more examples of just what a boob he was.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey thinks Lessans did not support his observations, and I am saying that he did.

But you can't show me where he does this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He accurately describes how conscience works.

So you keep asserting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He doesn't presuppose that there is a God given standard of right and wrong.

Then show me where he argues for and supports this claim.

Do you really think it's acceptable to post the entire chapter and then just say 'It's in there somewhere. Go find it for yourself'?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you already read it, all I'm asking you to do is to skim the text and take out what you think are the main points.

Why can't you do this? You're the one presenting the material. Why can't you identify the main points? Why must you beg others to do your work for you? (And you were replying to LadyShea there, not me. Why can't you even keep track of who you are talking to?)

Please note also that LadyShea has now clarified that she was not asking you to post the entire chapter, and further recall that you did say you would not copypaste unless asked to do so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You asked if anyone has questions, and that seemed like a pretty damn relevant one. Why won't you answer? Where does any of what you just copypasted support any of the points I listed?

And I said why can't you list the main points? What is so difficult Spacemonkey? That's what teachers do so that she knows who is having comprehension problems. A teacher doesn't go through a math unit in one day and expect everybody to grasp all of the material. If a student has a question that is answered later in the course, she will say that we're not there yet, but it will be answered shortly. Unfortunately, I believe that you will continue to say this knowledge is unsupported because you won't accept that his observations were anything more than assertions or that his reasoning was anything more than mistaken presuppositions.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, did you miss the following extermely pertinent question?

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.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I said why can't you list the main points? What is so difficult Spacemonkey? That's what teachers do so that she knows who is having comprehension problems.

Ins't it precious how she is so mentally deluded she thinks that she is instructing us?

Hey, peacegirl, about spacemonkey's question on light ...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what the dispute is about. You're just repeating what the afferent model of sight states, you're not proving it.

Because you said that the field of optics explains the apparent discrepancy we are having. The claim that objects must be in range to be seen, and the competing claim that we don't need objects in our visual range to be seen. All we need is the reflected light to see the image of the object. But I don't see any explanation that solves this dilemma.

I didn't say that Spacemonkey did, however, optics is an entire field of physics...of course you don't see any explanation in the definition you grabbed off the Internet.

Terms you could look up:

Subtended angle
Inverse square law
Perspective
Angle of view

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes you did! Now you're lying!!

No, you stupid braying ass, I did no such thing. A fallacious "argument to authority" is that some claim is correct because an authority supports it; and I never claimed the argument in question was true BECAUSE it was supported by Swartz or anyone else; as you well know, I presented the argument myself initially, and then later linked to the Swartz paper for those who wanted a more in-depth analysis. Lying little twit.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I said why can't you list the main points? What is so difficult Spacemonkey? That's what teachers do so that she knows who is having comprehension problems. A teacher doesn't go through a math unit in one day and expect everybody to grasp all of the material. If a student has a question that is answered later in the course, she will say that we're not there yet, but it will be answered shortly. Unfortunately, I believe that you will continue to say this knowledge is unsupported because you won't accept that his observations were anything more than assertions or that his reasoning was anything more than mistaken presuppositions.

Show us where in the chapter there is anything but assertions and presuppositions.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I said why can't you list the main points? What is so difficult Spacemonkey? That's what teachers do so that she knows who is having comprehension problems. A teacher doesn't go through a math unit in one day and expect everybody to grasp all of the material. If a student has a question that is answered later in the course, she will say that we're not there yet, but it will be answered shortly. Unfortunately, I believe that you will continue to say this knowledge is unsupported because you won't accept that his observations were anything more than assertions or that his reasoning was anything more than presuppositions.

Of course every good teacher shows their work. They carefully list out the steps they took to get the result. They are able to show where they got each step and they can state the rules and how they apply on each step.

You can't do any of this because Lessans was an uneducated boob. He just didn't know enough about anything he tried to write about to do this. And you are so mentally ill that I doubt you could understand a coherent explanation of much of anything. The experiment to test your comprehension has been done on this forum many dozens of times and all results are consistent with a person without a working brain.

For some reason LadyShea and Spacemonkey find it entertaining to continually ask you to do something you clearly can't do. And you are so ill that you compulsively keep going through the same motions over and over again pretending that you have a clue. Your illness will not let you stop. Your performance here is both pathetic and tragic.

Please get help peacegirl.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I said why can't you list the main points? What is so difficult Spacemonkey? That's what teachers do so that she knows who is having comprehension problems. A teacher doesn't go through a math unit in one day and expect everybody to grasp all of the material. If a student has a question that is answered later in the course, she will say that we're not there yet, but it will be answered shortly. Unfortunately, I believe that you will continue to say this knowledge is unsupported because you won't accept that his observations were anything more than assertions or that his reasoning was anything more than mistaken presuppositions.

I have no interest in summarizing your material for you, nor is that relevant to what I asked you. You asked if anyone has questions, so...

Where does any of what you just copypasted support any of the points I listed?

If none of it does, then just say so. And let me know when you start posting something that does.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you can't show me where he does this.

I really don't think you're going to agree with anything he explains. You will keep calling them unsupported assertions when they are anything but.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He accurately describes how conscience works.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you keep asserting.

A description is not what you're looking for, so it doesn't matter what he describes, you will say there's no proof.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He doesn't presuppose that there is a God given standard of right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then show me where he argues for and supports this claim.

He has already supported his claim by describing what he observed regarding conscience. You will continue to tell me that this is not proof. Maybe it's not in your book, but Lessans' explanation is sound. You might have to wait until the new world is here to get the proof you are looking for.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you really think it's acceptable to post the entire chapter and then just say 'It's in there somewhere. Go find it for yourself'?

I didn't say that. I said we're not there yet. Let's first go through the main points of this lesson. That's how we learn new things.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you already read it, all I'm asking you to do is to skim the text and take out what you think are the main points.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why can't you do this? You're the one presenting the material. Why can't you identify the main points? Why must you beg others to do your work for you? (And you were replying to LadyShea there, not me. Why can't you even keep track of who you are talking to?)

Everyone answers everyone else's posts, so I can't always keep track.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please note also that LadyShea has now clarified that she was not asking you to post the entire chapter, and further recall that you did say you would not copypaste unless asked to do so.

I'm not going to continue then. This chapter is not that long, yet you have no patience to understand what this man is saying in his words. I really question your motivation for being here.