A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe the Supernova is not large enough to be seen with a telescope until it reaches it's mass potential before it starts to compress. By that time the neutrinos (these sub-atomic particles) have had time to reach Earth so the Supernova and the neutrinos are detected at close intervals. Just a theory.

The Stupid Woman posts again!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I don't think its cowardice. I think they all look like gibberish to her. It would be like thinking your dog is a coward because he hasn't been answering his emails...

...or because he hasn't recognized you in a picture.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are on the wrong track and I'm not going to follow this faulty train of thought. You tell me that Lessans' observations are not proven? Do you see something unfair about this when science's explanation is far from proven? I have no desire to talk about Stars when the answers regarding sight are right in our own backyard. You're just avoiding them. You keep telling me that optics explains all this, but where? How does it explain the fact that we never see an image if the object is not in the camera's or telescope's field of view, or in our visual range?

Dissembling, dishonest little twat.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...or because he hasn't recognized you in a picture.

She doesn't have a clue. She can't even recognize herself in that picture.

[peacegirl]

An added response to this post...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't have to be a physicist to know that light does not consist of molecules. All you need is a clue.

Molecules are the building blocks of matter. He was using it in this context. You're discounting this discovery because of his use of this one word? It's true that we have to have a basis for communication by how we define words, but if the communication is not compromised by the use of a certain word, why would you make such a big production out of this triviality unless you are purposely trying to discredit him?

In physics and chemistry, matter exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties, the so-called wave–particle duality.

Matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Admit when you're wrong LadyShea, or I will start calling you a liar.

On that note, is it possible for light to travel from A to B (at a finite speed) without ever being in transit or having any travel time?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Will you admit when you are wrong? Or are you a liar?

I'm neither.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Where did Spacemonkey assume any particular position other than your own? Whatever the model is you're proposing, do you mean that it's incompatible with logic?

Yes, if the logic is flawed.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Molecules are the building blocks of matter. He was using it in this context. You're discounting this discovery because of his use of this one word?

No, you blithereing, dishonest twat, it is being discounted because his ideas about light and sight are contradicted in literally thousands of different ways by REALITY, which has been repeatedly pointed out to your dishonest little ass. The fact that he called light "molecules" is just a topper, showing that he was so much of a buffoon he couldn't even get simple stuff right.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Molecules are the building blocks of matter. He was using it in this context. You're discounting this discovery because of his use of this one word? It's true that we have to have a basis for communication by how we define words, but if the communication is not compromised by the use of a certain word, why would you make such a big production out of this triviality unless you are purposely trying to discredit him?

peacegirl, he is trying to get you to understand something you will probably never understand.

You can't claim Lessans was completely accurate when he wasn't completely accurate. It means he can't make any mistakes. None. He must be perfect. Especially when you belabor the fact that he spent so much time reading the same books over and over again and rewriting his books over and over again. In that context discussing a molecule of light is a big mistake. He might as well have discussed a brick of clouds.

However if that was Lessans only mistake or his mistakes were few, or you were not severely cognitively impaired, I'm sure Spacemonkey and many others would be able to overlook it. But since you can't comprehend a logical inconsistency even when it bites you squarely on the ass then for some reason Spacemonkey, LadyShea and others will continue to point them out to you.

I suspect they are doing so out of sheer amazement at your cognitive impairment.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I said that light travels at a finite speed, but when a camera takes a picture or the eyes are looking at something, all that's necessary is for light to be at the object. The reason for this is that we're seeing efferently, not afferently, which does not involve time.

You're lying again. First you said the light at the camera didn't travel to get there, then you said it did. That is you changing your answer to the same question. And now you're changing your position again. First you said it was the properties of the light at the camera which determines the nature of the photograph. Now you're saying light only has to be at the object and not at the camera. So how can distant light interact with the film? You can't seriously mean something that stupid, so why do you keep saying things you don't mean?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never changed my answers; you're just basing your questions about light on the afferent model, which will make my answers look inconsistent but they're not.

You're lying again, though as much to yourself as anyone else, I expect. You do change your answers. I've quoted you changing your answers. You've changed them again in this very post. And my questions are not based upon the afferent model. That is a blatant lie you keep trotting out as an excuse for not answering inconvenient questions, and for avoiding responsibility for your own inconsistency. I am not the one making you look inconsistent. You are doing that. If I ask a loaded question that presupposes something which is not true on the efferent model, then you have only to point it out. That you continue to make this charge without ever being able to support it is just another sign of your dishonesty and/or mental illness.

With this latest reversal we're now back at Q1 on my list:

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, you admit that your claim that the light comes from the Sun is inaccurate. Thank you.

All of the sunlight that shines on the earth, moon, and all of the other planets and moons in the solar system, comes from the sun.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, if the logic is flawed.

Show me where my questions assumed any particular position other than your own.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of the sunlight that shines on the earth, moon, and all of the other planets and moons in the solar system, comes from the sun.

Another tautology. Of course sunlight comes from the sun. That's what sunlight is. But it is not the only light present in our solar system.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Show me where my questions assumed any particular position other than your own.

Spacemonkey, what are the odds peacegirl will 1) comprehend your questions and 2) answer coherently or 3) answer at all?

I'm curious to understand what you think you are doing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of presupposition but these things have to be true (as long as you're not going to tell me God doesn't exist so conscience cannot be infallible under any condition) for his argument to work. I believe that he has shown quite accurately that conscience works exactly as he describes.

If the things I listed have to be true for his argument to be true, then why should anyone believe them? I know what you believe. The problem is that your belief is irrational. You can't show us anywhere in his book where he specifically supports or argues for these presuppositions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What about you? Telling me I'm mentally ill and a liar? Is that a nice thing to say when I'm bending over backwards to help you understand this discovery? It certainly doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. Sorry but I will need to cut and paste the rest of this chapter. People who are truly interested in his words (as you say you are) will devour anything I post regardless of whether it's directly from the text or whether it's paraphrased. I think it will help people understand how he came about making these inferences, at the very least. I have a feeling that you will never be satisfied because he didn't write down his results in a laboratory setting.

You are mentally ill and you are dishonest. This is obvious to everyone here but you. You're not bending over backwards to help anyone. You're doing everything you can to avoid facing reality. There is no need for you to copypaste the entire chapter at all. That is just your mental illness talking. If you were serious about helping us, then you would read through the chapter yourself, and then post those specific paragraphs where you think he is offering support for those things I have listed as presuppositions. But you won't do that. You'd rather make up excuses that you can hide behind.

[peacegirl]

I don't know why; all I know is that Lessans' observations were spot on. I believe there's a lot more chance for error when you're discussing Stars and neutrinos (which have just recently become identified), therefore, to reject Lessans outright (just because he disgrees with your position) is doing the exact thing that you criticize in me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I reject Lessans because he does not support his claims, so I see no reason to believe them. I also know of observations (one of them is the neutrino's) that flatly contradict him: we know the neutrinos were emitted many centuries ago. We also know that we are right about how far away Jupiter is: we have even observed it up close with probes. If all these things check out, then instant, direct vision simply cannot be true.

Yes, it does appear that way, but I still maintain that Lessans was right based on his observations, which he himself said could be empirically tested.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the way, how do you know his observations were spot on? You do not accept empirical observations as enough to refute him. Logical ones you also do not accept. This more or less means that there is nothing that could possibly make you doubt him. Does that seem like a reasonable, rational position to you?

Until there is more testing done (that is reliable and replicable), I will continue to believe he was right. That sounds very reasonable and rational to me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As for the rest, all that hinges on the claim that conscience works a certain way, a claim we are not given any reason to believe.

That's because you're not really paying attention to his evidence as to how the brain actually works, or even giving it a second thought. That makes me wonder if the only reason you're here is to attack Lessans for having the gall to suggest that science may not be right in this area.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not aware of any evidence in the book at all, to tell you the truth, and I have gone over it a few times. I see a lot of claims, but the key point, his claim about how conscience works, I see no support for.

I don't know how you can say that. He is so clear in his description of how conscience works. He doesn't just say conscience gets stronger in a no blame environment. He explains the reasons why.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And I cannot help but notice that you have so far been unable to point it out as well. Apparently it is very special evidence that needs reassurance before it can come out of hiding, or something.

It's right there in black and white. His inferences are correct.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Finally - the bit about leaders and scientists being necessary is written by you, not him. You added that failure clause after the prediction failed.

The above quote was not written by me. It was written by Lessans. So you're wrong again.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Really? I thought it read like it was tweaked. Fair enough: I will take your word for it, and assume that there was a failure clause in it from the start, which explains that if the book does not do what it is supposed to do, that is the fault of the readers and not the fault of the book.

There was no failure clause just because there was no way for him to know positively when this discovery would get recognized. And how can you equate something that he could not predict with certainty ...with his claims that the book does what it is suppose to do once it is recognized and applied in a global context?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wrong. I'm trying to figure it out (or rather help you figure it out) from your own position, and it's still completely incoherent on your own view and by your own descriptions and answers. You are lying to yourself every time you try to accuse me of presupposing any aspect of afferent vision, or try to suggest that afferent vision has anything at all to do with the contradictions and absurdities you keep leading yourself into.

Bump.

(You don't need to respond to this, but you do need to read it.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't make a statement. I asked a question. One based not upon the afferent model, but upon your responses. So please stop lying. The square peg is efferent vision, and the round hole is provided by your answers to my questions. Afferent vision doesn't even enter into it. I asked the above question because after agreeing that the light at the camera travelled there from the object being photographed (at a finite speed) YOU said this:

You said these things as an excuse for not answering this question:

If the object changes color after the light in question leaves its surface, but before that light reaches the camera (i.e. before the photograph is taken), can the frequency of that travelling light change while it is in transit (between the object and the camera) so that it continues to match the real-time color of the object?

Now that you've retracted those absurd claims you still need to answer this question. You've said that the frequency of the light at the camera (when the photograph is taken) determines the color of the photograph produced on the film. I want to know if that light, which previously travelled to get there, always had those same frequency properties or if those properties would have changed at some point during transit (so as to match any changes in the object occurring during that transit time).

Bump.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Spacemonkey, what are the odds peacegirl will 1) comprehend your questions and 2) answer coherently or 3) answer at all?

I'm curious to understand what you think you are doing.

Yeah, this is the point, though I'm as guilty of it as anyone.

What do we, who are interacting with this crazy lady, think we are doing? The best thing really is to just drop it. Ignore her. She desperately craves attention; even negative attention. She cannot be honest -- dishonesty is her stock in trade. She cannot reason. And she is mentally ill. If this thread continues for a thousand pages, the same topics will crop up again and again. She has the unvarnished gall, in her recent post, to suggest that the only reason people here reject Lessans is because he called light molecules, when in fact we have rejected his claims for thousands of very precise, empirical reasons; and she knows this.

She is a twat. She should be effectively banned by the strategem of ignoring her bilge.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you were serious about helping us, then you would read through the chapter yourself, and then post those specific paragraphs where you think he is offering support for those things I have listed as presuppositions. But you won't do that.

It's not that she won't do it, she can't do it. She doesn't understand what you are asking for. A person who can't spot a logical inconsistency will not be able to spot a presupposition. She isn't being dishonest. She is being ill.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was no failure clause just because there was no way for him to know positively when this discovery would get recognized. And how can you equate something that he could not predict with certainty ...with his claims that the book does what it is suppose to do once it is recognized and applied in a global context?

Here again peacegirl is unable to spot the logical inconsistency. It just does not dawn on her that for Lessans "astute observations" to be completely correct his predictions have to be completely correct. That to miss the prediction is a failure of his "astute observations". At a minimum she would have to show that Lessans theory was correct but that he made a mistake in his calculations and then correct the mistake to come up with a new answer. And that answer better be in the future. She would also have to show his work, something she does not appear to have, and which I doubt Lessans ever did in the first place. Like everything else in his book he mostly pulled it out his ass.

She understands nothing of this. If she reads this most of it will appear as gibberish to her.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until there is more testing done (that is reliable and replicable), I will continue to believe he was right. That sounds very reasonable and rational to me.

But it isn't. It's the exact opposite of reasonable and rational. Rejecting all of the present disconfirming evidence based only upon your faith in Lessans' allegedly astute powers of observation/revelation is not rational. It is not reasonable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how you can say that. He is so clear in his description of how conscience works. He doesn't just say conscience gets stronger in a no blame environment. He explains the reasons why.

His offered reasons are based upon further principles for which he did not give reasons at all, and which no-one but you and he find at all plausible. So no-one has any reason to believe his account of conscience.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Spacemonkey, what are the odds peacegirl will 1) comprehend your questions and 2) answer coherently or 3) answer at all?

None, none, and very slim.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm curious to understand what you think you are doing.

Entertaining myself.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None, none, and very slim.

Entertaining myself.

Well then you have the perfect foil, an unarmed person.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Molecules are the building blocks of matter. He was using it in this context.

Light isn't matter. It is energy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're discounting this discovery because of his use of this one word?

Of course not. I'm discounting his non-discovery because efferent vision is refuted by mountains of evidence for which you can offer no alternative explanation, and it is not even a coherent possibility as evidenced by your own inconsistent answers to very simple questions.

Here I was simply pointing out that you don't have to be a physicist to know that light does not consist of molecules.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yeah, this is the point, though I'm as guilty of it as anyone.

What do we, who are interacting with this crazy lady, think we are doing? The best thing really is to just drop it. Ignore her. She desperately craves attention; even negative attention. She cannot be honest -- dishonesty is her stock in trade. She cannot reason. And she is mentally ill. If this thread continues for a thousand pages, the same topics will crop up again and again. She has the unvarnished gall, in her recent post, to suggest that the only reason people here reject Lessans is because he called light molecules, when in fact we have rejected his claims for thousands of very precise, empirical reasons; and she knows this.

I agree, there is no sport in this. If anything we should be trying to get her to seek professional help.