A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's certainly not decades or centuries, as the difference would be if we saw the supernova as it happened at it's own location in spacetime, but had to await the arrival of neutrinos.

For the purposes of this discussion the time difference is negligible and therefore confuses the issue.

You do realize peacegirl is arguing that temporal location is not a real thing? That light years away are not a factor in seeing?

Sorry, but I get a bit frustrated when I try to add revelant information to the dialogue and it seems to be ignored. At this point I really don't care what Peacegirl argues or claims as it is mostly nonsense, but what others see on this thread is important. The time difference it important since it has been acknowledged that Neutrinos travel at a finite speed which has been known to be slightly less than the speed of light. This with the information that the light from an exploding star arrives after the neutrinos. It has been known that the further away the star is the less warning the neutrino burst gives to observe the visible light from the supernova and at some distance there is no advance warning at all. If, as peacegirl claims, we see the light imediately the neutrino burst would arrive hundreds or thousands of years after the light is seen. In fact astronomers have set up detectors for neutrinos and, based on the directional information, are able to point telescopes in the correct direction to see the first visible light from a supernova. This information alone disproves instant viewing of distant supernovas, although in peacegirls mind, it might not disprove instant viewing here on Earth, in fact seeing anything on Earth is so close to instant as to be indistinguishable, proof enough for Peacegirl.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Hun, look at that sentence. Just for one darn minute look at it. His "Observations" were not shared - only his conclusions. In fact
, any time when we are asked to take his word on something without having adequate proof, we are told it was an "astute observation". An observation that was not recorded, that we cannot check or repeat... so what are you basing your assent on, other than the fact that you would like to think he was right?

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.

In the area of light, these have been done. They prove him wrong. Even you have admitted that you simply do not know an alternate explanation. I fail to see what evidence would actually convince you: whenever some empirical evidence comes up, you find some excuse to dismiss it.

Have you done any testing to see if babies are in fact created by fairies who fly up your bum, and that sperm and ovum are merely a condition for the creation of babies? No? Then do you feel my continued belied in the Bum-Fairies theory of baby-creation to be reasonable? Because that is what you are asking of me!

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.

Sure - he explains what it is he claims. But he does not say at any point why we should believe it is true. He does not show why and how he reached that conclusion. We cannot follow his train of reasoning and see if we agree. He merely informs us that this is what he believes, and leaves it at that.

If I am wrong, please feel free to point out what I have missed, and where I can find it in the book. So far you have consistently failed to do so.

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

Great! Where? All I can find is his assertion that it is so. At no point do I see any support.

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?

That is the failure clause. He does not acknowledge option 3: the possibility that he is just dead wrong. The options he presents are 1: full acceptance or 2: lack of understanding.

Like you, he equates all disagreement with lack of understanding: if you disagree then it is automatically the fault of the reader. This is not just unscientific, it is anti-scientific. No scientist would ever present anything in such absolutist terms.

This from a supposed humble man

[davidm]

peacegirl is resting up; she has to get her typing fingers in shape for another huge "Copy-paste" tomorrow. As if copy-pasting this drivel for the umpteenth time will make any difference to anyone.

[Angakuk]

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.

How will you know when enough reliable and replicable testing has been done?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Originally Posted by thedoc
Just a quick review,

This is one of my favourite pieces of crazy. You just said that if we were to activate a hypothetical sun in we would see it right away using light that has already reached the eye even though it travels at lightspeed, which means it will take 8 minutes and a bit to reach us?

Can you not see that you are just flailing around at random here, and that you do not even have a clear idea how it is supposed to work yourself? It doesn't even make sense to you!

We would see it right away because the distance when viewing efferently is what allows us to see it instantly. The reason it doesn't seem logically coherent is because you are basing your analysis on the afferent model, which clearly make real time vision an impossibility. Following that same reasoning, it doesn't matter whether we're looking at something far away, such as the moon at night, or looking at something close up, such as a candle in a dark room, because the eyes don't know the difference as long as what one sees [out there] is within one's visual range.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Mass potential...what?

Here's the scenario, peacegirl. We can see a supernova through a telescope. We are, in fact, looking at it right now from Earth.

I am asking you to tell me when, exactly, that seeing is taking place in relation to the star that is in supernova right now in it's own time zone.

According to efferent vision, the spatial distance is negated...in other words we are seeing the supernova here on Earth simultaneously to it happening there at the star's location.

Is that not a correct statement based on Lessans claims, esp his example about an observer near Rigel as well as his example of the Sun exploding?

It's close enough. We are seeing what is occurring as it happens only because efferent vision does not require light to travel to us in order to see the event or object. That is why Lessans says light is a condition of sight not as cause; in other words we need light to see but we are not receiving the image of the object from the light itself. When talking about seeing light as an image, it gets confusing so I want to stick with objects.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is very easy to explain.

Let us say that we are standing on top of a mountain that is 6000 miles tall, under optimum conditions. The horizon at sea level at that height is 200 miles. For all practical purposes that is the farthest we are going to see on earth, if we want to keep from looking at the sky in stead.

That still only represents 0.001 lightseconds. If you consider that if we flicker an image between black and white at about 60 FPS, or roughly 0.01 seconds per frame, we do not even see the flicker but perceive a stable gray field, this gives you some idea why you will always need some machine or other, like a high-speed camera, to do any experiments on earth. To experience the delay without using a machine, you need far greater distances. Happily, we have Jupiter, where we observe just that.

Your dismissal of observations in space is just convenient for you because they flatly and conclusively contradict direct sight, something which you are unable to deal with.

What you just said doesn't even make sense because that would mean objects would be reflecting light within our visual range so fast that we would get a blur or nothing at all. But this doesn't happen. So if this doesn't occur in a space closer to us, why would we only get a blur in a space farther away from us based on your theory that it's because light is traveling too fast for us to get a clear image?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, we CAN see an image if the object is not in the cameras field of view: we can see objects that are actually behind us using mirrors. How do you explain mirrors in your theory of sight? In the normal one, mirrors reflect light. What do they reflect in yours?

Mirrors work exactly how they are supposed to work whether the eyes are afferent or efferent. It would make no difference as long as the object is present, albeit indirectly. Remember, just because the eyes are efferent doesn't mean they don't use the same light in order to see. So we would be seeing the same image in the mirror, no difference. I don't want to get into images in contrast to objects because people are already so confused about efferent vision, it will only add to the problem.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't bring it up again, I responded to its being brought up

Once again, any reasonable, criticial analysis of the actual text as written is nitpicking or personal attack. Keep waving your woo flag, there peacegirl.

I don't call this thread a reasonable, critical analysis. That's the problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

FYI, he didn't say light arrives and parks, or even imply that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I said, "peacegirl is already present" what would I be implying? That you had already traveled, arrived, and stayed and are still here, correct? What if I said "Once the family car arrives it remains here"? That would indicate the car arriving here and parking, correct?

So, what is implied by these sentence if not the same exact thing?

because these photons are already present.
Once the light is here it remains here

That's not what he said though. Why are you pulling out only one part of the sentence to make it an incorrect interpretation; the very thing you accuse me of doing when I cut an paste and leave out the whole excerpt?

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This shows me how low you are willing to go to make him a laughingstock.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not our fault Lessans was such a terrible writer he couldn't make a clear and coherent point without making ridiculous implications.

LadyShea, I saw your summary of his discovery and it's very sketchy just like Spacemonkey's is. You don't even have a rudimentary grasp as to why man's will is not free, according to Lessans, and because you don't you resort to calling his work a modal fallacy. That's okay, I still have hope that, in time, you'll finally get it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where does the following excerpt give any indication that he believed light is not always moving in a constant stream

Originally Posted by LadyShea

See bolded.

What in the bolded text do you not understand? constant energy
of the sun

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us.
When the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present.

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not wrong. Call me a liar all you want, but you are clearly the one doing mental gymnastics to make this glaring mistake seem legitimate

You are very wrong. You probably can't stand the fact that Lessans might actually be right.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you just said doesn't even make sense because that would mean objects would be reflecting light within our visual range so fast that we would get a blur or nothing at all. But this doesn't happen. So if this doesn't occur in a space closer to us, why would we only get a blur in a space farther away from us based on your theory that it's because light is traveling too fast for us to get a clear image?

This is beautiful, Peacegirl believes that if light is carrying the image of the object that because light moves so fast the image would be a blur as it passes our eye. L.O.L. It is true that each photon does not carry the image of the object, but each photon carries information about that object and the combination of all the information is what the brain uses to build the image. It's as if each photon carries one pixel of data, color and position, and when all the information from all the photons are intrepreted together the brain has an image that is the object we see.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is beautiful, Peacegirl believes that if light is carrying the image of the object that because light moves so fast the image would be a blur as it passes our eye. L.O.L. It is true that each photon does not carry the image of the object, but each photon carries information about that object and the combination of all the information is what the brain uses to build the image. It's as if each photon carries one pixel of data, color and position, and when all the information from all the photons are intrepreted together the brain has an image that is the object we see.

How many times has all of this been explained to this nut job? Yet she continues to puke out the same BS, about how light carries the image and it would blur past us because light is so fast, blah blah blah.

Give it up, folks, the sooner you quit responding to her the sooner her family might get her treated.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's certainly not decades or centuries, as the difference would be if we saw the supernova as it happened at it's own location in spacetime, but had to await the arrival of neutrinos.

For the purposes of this discussion the time difference is negligible and therefore confuses the issue.

You do realize peacegirl is arguing that temporal location is not a real thing? That light years away are not a factor in seeing?

I'm not sure what you mean by temporal location, so please clarify this for me. If you understand why efferent vision is true, the strangeness disappears.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When do we see it, peacegirl, according to Lessans? I think I have correctly interpreted the examples he offers in the book, of which two were related to space/stars. If you have a different explanation of those examples, and can therefore demonstrate my wrong track, I am all ears.

Quit dodging.

I gave you a list of optics terms to research a few pages back including subtended angles and the inverse square law. Do it or don't, but quit acting like you have any clue what you are talking about.

I don't care about your optics proof. Angles and inverse square laws actually support efferent vision. All this does is show us the point at which we can no longer see the object. Do you not get this at all, or are you faking it? You are determined to defend that which cannot be defended if you're a good investigator regarding how the brain functions [which Lessans clearly stated could be EMPIRICALLY TESTED]. And, by the way, you are not all ears except for what's convenient to your argument. That's called selective hearing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care about your optics proof.

Of course you don't.

Angles and inverse square laws actually support efferent vision.

No, they don't, stupid.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's close enough. We are seeing what is occurring as it happens only because efferent vision does not require light to travel to us in order to see the event or object.

If efferent visions is true, then we would see the supernova many, many, many years (hundreds, thousands, or millions of years) before the neutrinos from that same supernova arrive here on Earth because the neutrinos do have to travel from that location to Earth, and the light does not.

This is not the case in repeatedly observed reality, however. The neutrinos arrive at roughly the same time as we are able to see the supernova through a telescope. Sometimes, they arrive several hours BEFORE we can see the supernova through a telescope, so the neutrinos announce a supernova and we know where to look for it visually.

This is a clear, irrefutable, repeatedly observed failure of the predictions Lessans model about sight and light and time make.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why Lessans says light is a condition of sight not as cause; in other words we need light to see but we are not receiving the image of the object from the light itself. When talking about seeing light as an image, it gets confusing so I want to stick with objects.

Seeing is seeing. In a true, factual model of vision, the example of what is being seen-whether it is an object or light itself or a reflection- shouldn't matter, the mechanism should explain all examples put forth consistently. Nobody is confused by the varying types of examples of seeing except you. Lessans model fails all tests so far, including this one, and the Moons of Jupiter observation.

You are only holding onto this efferent vision nonsense by faith, peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The temporal location is not a real thing? I'm not sure what you mean by temporal location, so please clarify this for me. If you understand why efferent vision is true, the strangeness disappears.

Temporal location is a location in time relative to the observers location in time. A light year is a measure of distance in spacetime, not just in miles.

[LadyShea]

That's not what he said though. Why are you pulling out only one part of the sentence to make it an incorrect interpretation; the very thing you accuse me of doing when I cut an paste and leave out the whole excerpt?

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us.

Light is energy the photons are the constant energy. That he referred to light as consisting of molecules, and somehow separate from the sun's energy indicates he had no idea what the hell light is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is energy the photons are the constant energy. That he referred to light as consisting of molecules, and somehow separate from the sun's energy indicates he had no idea what the hell light is.

LadyShea, let it go already because you're beginning to look foolish. You are failing miserably to prove Lessans wrong, and I think deep down you know it. The harder you try, the deeper the hole gets.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you wouldn't negate someone's work based on experimental data from physics. What would you negate someone's work based on?

I would not negate experimental data from physics unless there was something that changed my viewpoint. Circumstantial evidence is not absolute proof, and sometimes theories get hardened into fact when there are no concrete facts. Isn't that what science stands for?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

On what do you base your negation of L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics? How about Hicquodiam's work regarding the lack of a true self?

Because there's no absolute proof of Hubbard's Dianetics, or of Hicquodiam's theories [I'm guessing they come from Buddism; I haven't studied his thread]. Ironically, Lessans rejected Dianetics because their method of proof was not based on fact. There may some threads of wisdom in these theories [very few religions or beliefs are based on complete rubbish], but not enough to make sweeping generalizations. It doesn't matter how many theories are out there, it does not change the accuracy of this knowledge, so please stop comparing these theories with Lessans' discovery, which is based on scientific principles. These are immutable laws, not contingent truths, which I hope you eventually recognize.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The New Meaning of Education: p. 555

Many philosophers
in trying to be educated have taken a simple truth which could have
been explained in a very few words and then made a profound book
out of it which nobody understood all because they judged the value
of the book by the quantity of big words and how difficult of being
grasped. How many poets, philosophers, psychiatrists and
psychologists have been accorded fame because they imparted their
own meaning and used this as a confirmation of wisdom. To agree
with a famous person is an unconscious way of saying, “I am as smart
as he is,” only he got a lucky break or he is able to express himself
better. Aristotle stopped the world from thinking for a while because
everybody agreed with what he had to say — due to his world renown.

Can you imagine what he would say about this book? How many of
you recognized in Durant’s Mansions of Philosophy your own
wisdom, which now turns out to be ignorance? Another way of
building up one’s own feeling of superiority is by disagreeing, but the
great humor lies in the fact that the standards we used to judge
another were equally fallacious. Because 6 is closer to the answer of
the cow problem than 7 doesn’t make it less wrong, nor does a book
like Dianetics become more true because it is dedicated to Durant, or
less true because it was not accepted by psychiatry.

[LadyShea]

[which Lessans clearly stated could be EMPIRICALLY TESTED]

Why do you keep saying this as if it is meaningful? I am really curious as to exactly what you think that statement actually means.

I can state anything I want can be empirically tested, that doesn't mean the idea I am positing has any merit, or that the proposed tests are feasible.

[LadyShea]

Do you reject Dianetics because Lessans did, or because you analyzed it yourself? You just admitted you didn't even read Hicquodiam's website, yet earlier you called it nonsense. So you are rejecting it based on what, exactly? Why are you allowed to reject ideas based on nothing, but we can't reject ideas based on experimental evidence?

I am asking you what criteria you, personsally, use to analyze new information or other people's ideas. Lessans ideas are certainly not "absolutely proven", so if that's your criteria then you have no reason to assume any of us should take Lessans seriously.

Because there's no absolute proof of the truth of Hubbard's Dianetics, or Hicquodiam's Buddist theories [I'm guessing they come from Buddism; I haven't studied his thread]. There may be elements of truth in his thread, but not enough to make sweeping generalizations. It doesn't matter how many theories are out there, it does not change the accuracy of this knowledge. You may think that someone's theory negates Lessans' observations, which, in the final analysis, will prove to be true because it works empirically. Ironically, Lessans rejected dianetics in his book as anything other than a flimsy theory.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, let it go already because you're beginning to look foolish. You are failing miserably to prove Lessans wrong, and I think deep down you know it. The harder you try, the deeper the hole gets.

Well, if I look foolish because I have not made stupid statements about molecules of light surrounding us, then yay for foolishness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL like you even understand what we are talking about, peacegirl

I understand what you're talking about. Nice try.

[LadyShea]

No, you really don't. Your consistent retort is butthurt about how we are rejecting Lessans out of fear or spite, or non answers like "Coincidences" and "images instead of objects" and never with well thought out explanations of how efferent vision actually works given these evidences.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? You make no sense.

We can see stars explode with a telescope.

We can detect when the neutrinos arrive with other equipment.

If we see the star explode instantly, the neutrinos produced by the explosion should arrive long after we see the star explode. Because we see the star explode the instant it happens (you claim!), but the neutrinos take a long time to reach us.

Now, what do you think actually happens?

It would seem to me that any sub-atomic particle coming from the Star would take time to be detected, but we could see the Star explode if it was large enough to be seen with a telescope.

Originally Posted by Dragar

That's certainly what Lessans predicts.

On the other hand, it turns out that what actually happens is that the particles arrive at Earth at roughly the same time we see the Sun explode. Since the particles take time to arrive, that means we are seeing the explosion later than when it actually happens.

Test complete! We learn Lessans is wrong, once again.

I would never negate someone's work because of a theory regarding the speed of neutrinos which are just being detected.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Neutrinos were detected in 1956. That's not 'just being detected'!

I'm talking about the idea that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light.

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's also irrelevent what the speed is. The fact is that we should expect a gap of at least years, if Lessans is right, and usually more depending on the distance to the exploding sun. We also know they move roughly at the speed of light anyway, although that fact is irrelevent to this test we've done.

And I will bet that if we were looking at an event taking place on a planet [such as an explosion] and were observing that event from three different locations [based on distance], we would see that event in real time regardless of our location. In other words, we would be seeing the same event occurring [as long as that event was within range of a telescope] regardless of how far away or how close we were to that planet.

And in contrast to your question answer me this Dragar: Why do we never detect an image on Earth if an object (not an image), is not in range for it to be resolved?

Originally Posted by Dragar

You're being silly. We don't 'detect' images, we make them. And if an object is 'not in range to be resolved', that means the image we make is too small to be useful (i.e. it's smaller than one pixel on whatever we are using to capture the light). I've answered this at least three times before, but you always ignore it. When you understand the word you are using, it turns out your question is either nonsensical or answers itself by pure definition, depending on how charitably we interpret your waffle.

No I'm not being silly so please stop patronizing me. If an object is not in range for it to be resolved, it should be able to be resolved within seconds due to the speed of light, especially if certain conditions are met such that the object is not microscopically undetectable and there is no interference where light could be diffused or refracted. What we find is that as the object gets closer, which makes it larger and places it within visual range, we are able to see it with a telescope or the naked eye. This is in keeping with Lessans' observations.

Originally Posted by Dragar

So, to summarise:

Lessans says that exploding suns are seen instantly. And yet the 'shrapnel' from the explosion arrives at the same time we see the explosion. Therefore Lessans is wrong.

I'd like to see evidence of this. Do you have any? I want to repeat that shrapnel travels through space, which means time is involved. But seeing something directly does not.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Give it up, folks, the sooner you quit responding to her the sooner her family might get her treated.

I understand this and just want to point out that there is a difference between responding to Peacegirl and responding about her, and I realize that in peacegirl's mind, every post on this thread is 'to' her. In my defence and of some others, there is still the matter of not letting Peacegirl's statements go unrefuted for the benefit of others who may read the thread and, seeing her post unchallenged, think that what she is posting has some validity. I think the thread has evolved, for many of us, to the point that there is no hope of reaching Peacegirl and bringing her to reality, but there is the reality that posting the truth in opposition to her posts will benefit others, and clear up any confusiion about the validity of the book and it's ideas. There is still the real possibility that she is being treated and the access to a computer and the internet is a part of that treatment. Possibly the act of posting these concepts from the book will, in time, bring back some sense of reality to her, assuming that she ever did have a genuine sense of reality. I believe that at least part of psychiatric treatment is to get the patient to express ideas and feelings and that expression could take many forms, talking, writing, posting on the internet, are all possiblities. It is also possible that the content of the posts will help the health care professionals to diagnose the exact problem and the more precise the diagnosis the more accurate the treatment. So let her post in the hopes that, in time, we can welcome another human being back to the realm of the sane and rational.