A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not if we can't see with our naked eye. But if we had a powerful enough telescope, we would be seeing the same exact thing.

I know this is old, and peacegirl will simply ignore it, but:
No, we wouldn't. The Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field images are produced by leaving the exposure open to the same spot in the sky for a long period of time (though this has to be broken up and compiled because the Hubble is not stationary and has to wait to orbit around the Earth again in order to view the same section of sky), hundreds of thousands of seconds all told. That is the only way to produce these images, and it only works because the information contained in light reflected or emitted from distant objects is precisely what we use to see images.

Lessans is wrong in his claims on light and vision, completely, irrevocably, almost inconceivably wrong. It is difficult to imagine a more incorrect proposal of the way light and vision work even as a deliberate parody. This is a problem for Lessans and his work for two reasons, first that even in his time Lessans could easily have discovered his errors with a little research. He didn't even have to rely on the word of other scientists, he could have seen why he was wrong for himself, but the fact that he was willing to do neither speaks very poorly of his reliability and honesty as an author of a supposed discovery to bring about a supposed Golden Age. Second, as I have discussed before, is the simple fact that all this rigmarole and carrying-on about sight is completely unnecessary to support any other facet of his book. It serves no purpose that cannot be served by less obviously-incorrect means. It ends up being nothing more than extra baggage on a tome already well over its weight limit, providing an extra-obvious error in what might otherwise have been a remarkable but not unusual bit of save-the-world-if-only-everyone-would-listen-to-ME woo.

Just look at how the first thread became primarily concerned with refuting this particular bit of nonsense from the book, when there's certainly no shortage of nonsense elsewhere in its pages. Just look how the same topic keeps coming up here. This is because, unlike Modal fallacies and circular logic, unlike the finer points of what does and does not constitute an observation, unlike claims of universality of conscience, unlike any other facet of this remarkable adventure, his claims on light and vision are so glaringly, so obviously, so unavoidably wrong that even laymen who do nothing more than use a camera to take vacation photos know that it is wrong! Regular, average people with no special knowledge of physics or optics or biology use devices every day that would not work if Lessans' claims were even partly correct.

If you don't want this to keep happening, at every message board you decide is finally going to be the gateway to acceptance of the Great Man's work, you need to apply your unattributed and unmarked editorial revisioning to a part of the book that will actually help instead of making it even more difficult and unpleasant to wade through. Otherwise, more than any other part of this ludicrous work, this topic will continue to be the albatross 'round its neck that carries it from simply wrong to utterly laughable.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I clearly stated that true vision is when a part of the eye is working.

Where? All I see if your definition of "being able to see like a normal person sees"

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, if I had to depend on you to explain this book I'd kill myself.

It is amazing just how oblivious to the damage she is creating to her very own cause. Certainly any body googling Lessans are gonna find the threads she has sprinkled all over the web and immediately conclude that peacegirl is a nutcase and Lessans was a moronic crank.

What peacegirl doesn't realize is that if she keeps this up she could very well turn the name Lessans into a synonym for moron.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And people's ideas of beauty change as they age too. So why is one conditioning and the other not if both can change?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because once a person is conditioned to seeing this beauty and ugliness as part of the real world, he cannot suddenly desire a person who is not desirable to him not realizing that the conditioning created the attraction in the first place.

What are you talking about? I specifically said people's ideas of beauty can and do change over time. I know this because it happened to me

I thought my husband was ugly and dorky when I first met him, but at some point and I started to see him as handsome, then grew a strong attraction to him (which remains 20 years later).

If he was never conditioned, and there was no criticism as far as his choice, he may find that a person with a hook nose and beady eyes are attractive to him.

And he may find himself attracted to someone with a hook nose and beady eyes anyway. People with hook noses and beady eyes are not all single and shunned, some of them have spouses who find them attractive and everything.

Some people find overweight people, and even obesity, especially attractive and some find the current Hollywood standard of very thin women very unattractive.

Where's the conditioning coming in?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

What peacegirl doesn't realize is that if she keeps this up she could very well turn the name Lessans into a synonym for moron.

Ah, - Too Late.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

Lessans is wrong in his claims on light and vision, completely, irrevocably, almost inconceivably wrong. It is difficult to imagine a more incorrect proposal of the way light and vision work even as a deliberate parody.

Well we now know that light isn't what science thought it was, it isn't even the fastest thing in the Universe, and here's the proof, including an exersize each person can do to see for themnselves.

Darksuckers

Bell Labs Proves Existence of Dark Suckers
For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emitted light. However, recent information from Bell Labs has proven otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light, they suck dark. Thus they now call these bulbs dark suckers. The dark sucker theory, according to a Bell Labs spokesperson, proves the existence of dark, that dark has mass heavier than that of light, and that dark is faster than light.
The basis of the dark sucker theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. Take for example, the dark suckers in the room where you are. There is less dark right next to them than there is elsewhere. The larger the dark sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot have a much greater capacity than the ones in this room. As with all things, dark suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the black spot on a full dark sucker. A candle is a primitive dark sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the path of the dark flowing into the candle.
Unfortunately, these primitive dark suckers have a very limited range. There are also portable dark suckers. The bulbs in these can't handle all of the dark by themselves, and must be aided by a dark storage unit. When the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable dark sucker can operate again.
Dark has mass. When dark goes into a dark sucker, friction from this mass generates heat. Thus it is not wise to touch an operating dark sucker. Candles present a special problem, as the dark must travel in the solid wick instead of through glass. This generates a great amount of heat. Thus it can be very dangerous to touch an operating candle. Dark is also heavier than light. If you swim deeper and deeper, you notice it gets slowly darker and darker. When you reach a depth of approximately fifty feet, you are in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats to the top. The immense power of dark can be utilized to mans advantage. We can collect the dark that has settled to the bottom of lakes and push it through turbines, which generate electricity and help push it to the ocean where it may be safely stored. Prior to turbines, it was much more difficult to get dark from the rivers and lakes to the ocean. The Indians recognized this problem, and tried to solve it. When on a river in a canoe travelling in the same direction as the flow of the dark, they paddled slowly, so as not to stop the flow of dark, but when they traveled against the flow of dark, they paddled quickly so as to help push the dark along its way.
Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in an illuminated room in front of a closed, dark closet, then slowly open the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet, but since the dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.
In conclusion, Bell Labs stated that dark suckers make all our lives much easier. So the next time you look at an electric bulb remember that it is indeed a dark sucker.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

I know this is old, and peacegirl will simply ignore it, but:
No, we wouldn't. The Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field images are produced by leaving the exposure open to the same spot in the sky for a long period of time (though this has to be broken up and compiled because the Hubble is not stationary and has to wait to orbit around the Earth again in order to view the same section of sky), hundreds of thousands of seconds all told. That is the only way to produce these images, and it only works because the information contained in light reflected or emitted from distant objects is precisely what we use to see images.

I'm not denying that there are Deep Field images. This doesn't conflict with the fact that we are seeing those images in real time. I never said that there wasn't information in light, but if Lessans is right that information is seen, through the eyes, in real time. I can't worry about what you think about Lessans. One day he will be vindicated.

Originally Posted by Kael

Lessans is wrong in his claims on light and vision, completely, irrevocably, almost inconceivably wrong. It is difficult to imagine a more incorrect proposal of the way light and vision work even as a deliberate parody. This is a problem for Lessans and his work for two reasons, first that even in his time Lessans could easily have discovered his errors with a little research. He didn't even have to rely on the word of other scientists, he could have seen why he was wrong for himself, but the fact that he was willing to do neither speaks very poorly of his reliability and honesty as an author of a supposed discovery to bring about a supposed Golden Age.

He did a tremendous amount of research even though he did not record his findings in a laboratory. The fact that you are judging him so harshly by saying that he was not reliable or honest is a blatant disregard for this man's character. You are defaming him for no reason other than you don't like that he claimed the eyes aren't a sense organ.

Originally Posted by Kael

Second, as I have discussed before, is the simple fact that all this rigmarole and carrying-on about sight is completely unnecessary to support any other facet of his book. It serves no purpose that cannot be served by less obviously-incorrect means. It ends up being nothing more than extra baggage on a tome already well over its weight limit, providing an extra-obvious error in what might otherwise have been a remarkable but not unusual bit of save-the-world-if-only-everyone-would-listen-to-ME woo.

This knowledge about sight is extremely important because it removes a terrible injustice, and this book is about equality for all people. A 600 page blueprint that shows us how to achieve world peace is far from a tome. This is not pie in the sky woo, but I can tell there's no convincing you otherwise.

Originally Posted by Kael

Just look at how the first thread became primarily concerned with refuting this particular bit of nonsense from the book, when there's certainly no shortage of nonsense elsewhere in its pages. Just look how the same topic keeps coming up here. This is because, unlike Modal fallacies and circular logic, unlike the finer points of what does and does not constitute an observation, unlike claims of universality of conscience, unlike any other facet of this remarkable adventure, his claims on light and vision are so glaringly, so obviously, so unavoidably wrong that even laymen who do nothing more than use a camera to take vacation photos know that it is wrong! Regular, average people with no special knowledge of physics or optics or biology use devices every day that would not work if Lessans' claims were even partly correct.

What devices are you talking about that would not work? Light still strikes the film so why would a camera not work? Those who know the least speak the loudest.

Originally Posted by Kael

If you don't want this to keep happening, at every message board you decide is finally going to be the gateway to acceptance of the Great Man's work, you need to apply your unattributed and unmarked editorial revisioning to a part of the book that will actually help instead of making it even more difficult and unpleasant to wade through. Otherwise, more than any other part of this ludicrous work, this topic will continue to be the albatross 'round its neck that carries it from simply wrong to utterly laughable.

I'm sorry, but I'm not changing anything. If there are people who cannot consider the possibility that Lessans may actually be right, then they shouldn't read the book. I don't think removing his second discovery would make any difference if they are already inclined to disagree. Very few people are doing any serious investigation. It doesn't surprise me that this work is getting backlash. It rubs people the wrong way because they don't believe he was right. Only time will tell.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What devices are you talking about that would not work?

Holy shit, you are stupid. And dishonest!

[davidm]

Hey, derper, , did you even read what Kael wrote? Here, READ THIS: I'll even put it in BOLD for you:

I know this is old, and peacegirl will simply ignore it, but:
No, we wouldn't. The Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field images are produced by leaving the exposure open to the same spot in the sky for a long period of time (though this has to be broken up and compiled because the Hubble is not stationary and has to wait to orbit around the Earth again in order to view the same section of sky), hundreds of thousands of seconds all told. That is the only way to produce these images, and it only works because the information contained in light reflected or emitted from distant objects is precisely what we use to see images.

See? If cameras took images in real time, what Kael is describing above would not happen. There would be no NEED for the Hubble to function in this way; the only reason it HAS TO function in this way, to take photos, is because it takes photos of light in delayed time! The very thing that Lessans denied!

Oh, and peacegirl? You seemed to have ignored my question: What "coincidence," as you put it, makes it be the case that the moons of Jupiter are observed in delayed time, thereby flatly contradicting Lessans' claims?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It rubs people the wrong way because they don't believe he was right. Only time will tell.

Just to reiterate: What rubs people the wrong way is your blatant dishonesty. Lessans' book, by contrast, is a barrel of laughs. I cracked up repeatedly at the sheer, joyous stupidity of it all.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not denying that there are Deep Field images. This doesn't conflict with the fact that we are seeing those images in real time.

Of course it does. It is in absolute conflict with real-time seeing.

Which you know. You are stupid, but not that stupid. It is just that you are compulsively dishonest.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If anybody in the health field heard you NA, they would think you have a classic case of projection which you're using as a psychological defense mechanism to protect your shaky self-esteem. Why don't you go get help?

Well that's an interesting hypothesis. I suggest you test it. That would be the scientific thing to do. And you're all about the science, right? So I think you should visit a mental health professional and present them with this thread. Have them provide you with their assessment, and see what they think. Are you prepared to do that?

Note also how you have chosen to completely ignore the infinite regress which results from your ridiculous person-behind-the-eyes nonsense, as explained by NA in the post you were replying to.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If there is some thing X at some point L at some time T, and X never got to L from anywhere else, then are there any other possibilities than that X was either created/came into existence at L, or that X was always there at L?

What the L are you babbling about?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that the word "reflect" is a misnomer because it implies that something is bouncing off of an object and traveling to a destination. Light exposes or reveals the external world by the wavelengths that are absorbed which allows us to see the object, not by what is reflected.

And yet you were the one who again (mis-)used the word "reflect" above in response to my question for which I still have no answer:

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

Saying it was reflected doesn't answer the question if reflection doesn't involve the travelling of light. How could that particular light not have travelled to get there if light is always in motion?

The only possible answers are that either that particular light was always there, or that it materialized there when the photograph was taken. Yet you refuse to accept either of these, to provide another alternative, or to correct your obviously incorrect claim that this light never travelled to get to the camera.

You are being dishonest with me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why Lessans said the following:

Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes.

Which shows him again to be an ignorant boob. Afferent vision does not require electric images flying through space.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking,
and the object seen, has no relation to time because the images
are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore
it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.

More ignorance. Refuting his absurd strawman (electric images flying through space on the wings of light to strike our optic nerves) doesn't prove real-time vision at all. And when you correct his nonsense to represent what the afferent model does say is happening (light travelling at a finite speed, and striking the retina in patterns of distribution of light of different frequencies which presents all the information required for a dated image) it is not at all clear that this never happens. All we have as his 'proof' here is his assertion that this doesn't happen.

But I don't need your response to any of this, other than an answer to this question:

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once you are conditioned to see a face as ugly, you don't all of a sudden think it's beautiful when people aren't around to influence you.

I can tell you, from personal experience, that this is simply not true.

I know a woman who, on first acquaintance, I thought was singularly unattractive. Fortunately I have, over the years, gotten to know her quite well. She is a wonderful, intelligent, caring and compassionate person. Over time, as I got to know her better and began to recognise her personal qualities, I stopped seeing her as physically unattractive.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course he had certain premises, and the premises had to be accurate to come to an accurate conclusion. So what you are saying is that you don't agree with his premises. That's okay, others will. Just because you don't agree doesn't make them wrong.

It is true that he inferred certain conclusions. That's what reasoning is Spacemonkey, but to say that he had presuppositions is wrong, and I'm not going to argue with you over this. If you want to hear the rest of his observations that led to his conclusions, great. If not, so be it.

His work presents no argument. He is showing that his premises based on accurate observations are correct, and his reasoning based on those premises is also accurate for that reason. You're correct in that what you believe were presuppositions is irrelevant because he had no presuppositions which you keep accusing him of. I wonder if you would argue with me if you knew I was Einstein's granddaughter?

His conclusions require certain premises to be true, but they were not presuppositions. You're confusing his findings based on reality with your confused logic. You have no clue how conscience works, yet you continue to tell me that his findings are mere assertions. You're here for one reason only, and that is to show everyone how wonderful you are in comparison to Lessans.

He shared everything he observed. How would you know what he observed if you didn't read the second chapter in its entirety, or if you did you surely didn't understand it? Your synopsis is ridiculously incomplete. You don't even understand the first thing about two-sided equation, yet you act like your critique means something. You are like Nageli who rejected the very core of Mendel's discovery, and now Mendel is the father of genetics, and Nageli is a footnote. That's where you're headed.

Ignoring your absurd ad hominem attacks here, you make a number of points which are false as a pure matter of definition. If his work had premises from which he reasoned his way to a conclusion, then his work presents an argument. That's just what an argument is. He also could not have been showing his premises to be true, because that would require giving reasons for thinking them to be true, which (again by definition) would mean they were not in fact premises but rather conclusions within his work.

And I'm not just saying that I don't happen to agree with his premises. I'm saying you haven't found a single person in nearly a decade of searching who does. Of course that doesn't prove them wrong, but it does show Lessans to have been a poor reasoner. Good reasoning does not begin from premises that most people will reject. And most (actually all) people have rejected his premises. If he was as insightful as he thought he was, he would have known that people would need to be given reasons to agree with his account of conscience. Reasons which he just didn't give us.

And you still aren't answering my questions. With respect to these points...

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

...do you agree or disagree that:

(i) These things have to be true for the conclusions of his book to be true?

(ii) He did not argue for or support these things anywhere within his book?

Because when I say that these were presuppositions of his work, all I mean is that they have to be true for his non-discovery to be valid, and that he didn't give any reasons for thinking that they are true. And you don't seem to be disagreeing with me on either of these points. Rather, you just seem to be having an emotional reaction to the word 'presupposition'.

It is a further issue whether or not he could have 'observed' the truth of his necessary premises by some kind of revelation or direct intuition, rather than having to infer them on the basis of what would have to be unshared properly observational (i.e. particular and non-general) facts. But that is a tangential issue at this point, for none of this would provide anyone here with any reason to accept or agree with those points I have listed above as presuppositions. And that means no-one has any reason to consider his first non-discovery to be valid.

[Spacemonkey]

Here are the questions which I need you to answer:

With respect to these points...

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

...do you agree or disagree that:

(i) These things have to be true for the conclusions of his book to be true?

(ii) He did not argue for or support these things anywhere within his book?


And:


How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His conclusions require certain things to be true,

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are those "certain things" required to be true and how did he demonstrate their truth?

Those "certain things" are the premises that must be true for his discovery to be true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but they were not presuppositions

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If they are required to be true, but not demonstrated to be true or conceded to be true, they are presuppositions by definition.

And, if he offered premises and conclusions he made an argument. Again by definition.

I believe he made accurate observations. If you don't believe that his premises were correct, then you will reject this knowledge.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're reasoning and use of the language is terrible. If you were Einstein's granddaughter, it would still be terrible.

My use of language might not be to your satisfaction, but your inability to see that his observations are more than assertions makes me wonder if this is a futile effort.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Those "certain things" are the premises that must be true for his discovery to be true.

Yes, and what specifically are they? And why should anyone agree that they are true?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe he made accurate observations.

Of course you do. Because you have faith.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't believe that his premises were correct, then you will reject this knowledge.

As everyone but you clearly does and will continue to do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My use of language might not be to your satisfaction, but your inability to see that his observations are more than assertions makes me wonder if this is a futile effort.

Of course it is a futile effort. You cannot give people any reason to think that his 'observations' are more than mere assertions. And rational people will not accept that claim without being given reasons for doing so.


No-one is ever going to share your faith.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wasn't talking about sound or cues from other senses, I was talking about vision and what constitutes true vision and not true vision*.

Label each of my examples as either true vision or not true vision, to demonstrate the usefulness of your definition and show how it is not fallacious. I numbered them for your convenience even.

*Really you're back to the juvenile "If it's horselike it's a horsey, if it's doglike it's a doggie"...your definition of true vision is meaningless as it stands. To be useful for scientific purposes a definition must be able to differentiate between any two examples. For instance, how could we differentiate between a rabbit and a hare if the definition didn't include number of chromosomes and other specifics?

I don't think it's important to define what is true vision. If someone is being helped because he can see these impulses that are sent from the tongue to the visual cortex and consequently avoid obstacles in his path, then this would be considered a limited type of vision. But this does not prove that the eyes are afferent.

[davidm]

peacegirl, could you finally address the moons of Jupiter issue please, instead of dishonestly evading it? Thanks!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But when we posted videos of images (shapes and movement) created by a computer using brain impulses, you said those weren't true vision

It depends what you call true vision LadyShea. I don't think these technologies will ever achieve the type of vision that you would call "normal", but it's still vision if it can help a blind person have a better quality of life.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl, could you finally address the moons of Jupiter issue please, instead of dishonestly evading it? Thanks!

Sorry! You think you can call me a shitwit and my father a buffoon and I'm going to have a conversation with you? Maybe in another year.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry! You think you can call me a shitwit and my father a buffoon and I'm going to have a conversation with you? Maybe in another year.

Translation: I CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I AM TALKING ABOUT, AND I AM A DISHONEST LITTLE CHARLATAN!

Too bad, so sad, someone else will ask you the same questions, shitwit. Then what?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It depends what you call true vision LadyShea.

Um, yes, I have been asking you to explain your definition of true vision for me, so we can use that definition to compare various examples to in the discussion. So when you say something is, or is not, true vision we can then determine if is a consistent use and not using the No True Scotsman fallacy, or moving the goalposts, as a weasel.

I would like you to do the same with "true conditioning" for the same reasons.

I don't think these technologies will ever achieve the type of vision that you would call "normal", but it's still vision if it can help a blind person have a better quality of life

What does quality of life have to do with the definition of "true vision"?