A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

You laugh, but there is a phenomena where a sexually abused daughter can have a very close relationship with an abusive father. Especially a potentially dangerous abusive father. It's a survival strategy. Unfortunately they rarely reach adulthood in a healthy state. I'm not saying that is what happened here but the kinds of crap that Lessans wrote does not rule it out. And the victim may suppress the abuse in favor of remembering what they think are the good parts. And if Lessans, asshole that he appears to be, indoctrinated his daughter with his nonsense at an early age, then what we are seeing here could very well be a combination of early abuse and cognitive failure (possibly inherited). peacegirl would be one sick puppy. It would explain why a woman of all people would be promoting Lessans. And it would explain why she left the misogynistic parts of the book intact.

Might also explain why she is no longer married and the kid are living away.

[naturalist.atheist]

Imagine being married to peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Imagine being married to peacegirl.

Beyond comprehension.

[But]

Can you give an example of a supernova where the light arrived before the neutrinos, thedoc? You said that this happens sometimes.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

X remains here simply means that the X which is here now is the same X that was here previously. That is what "remains here" means. Therefore, when Lessans states that "[o]nce the light is here it remains here" the clear implication is that the light which is here now is the very same light that was here on some previous occasion. If the light which is here now is new light then it is not light which has "remained".

Again, when Lessans states that "these photons are already present" he is clearly referring to those photons which were present on the other side of the Earth when the Sun was shining on that side of the Earth.

The inescapable conclusion is that Lessans believed that once light arrives at a particular location it remains at that location. As has been repeatedly explained to you, this is simply incorrect.

If we are to believe that by the statement "photons of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us" Lessans meant to say that the Earth is the recipient of a constant stream of new photons from the Sun then he cannot be correct when he states that "[o]nce the light is here it remains here" or that "these photons are already present". The phrase "photons of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us" either refers to some phenomenon other than that of the Earth being the recipient of of a constant stream of new photons from the Sun or Lessans is contradicting himself in that single paragraph.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the variables of the test are controlled such that there can be no statistically significant errors, or bias.

How will you be able to tell whether or not this happened?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a strawman if I ever saw one. That's not what I'm even asking. I am asking why the brain can form an image from light when an object is in range, but can't form an image from light that is slightly out of range, or farther from us? According to you, out of range objects would be blurred due to the speed of light, which doesn't add up.

Where did thedoc, or anyone else, ever say that "out of range objects would be blurred due to the speed of light"? Please provide a specific citation.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Where did thedoc, or anyone else, ever say that "out of range objects would be blurred due to the speed of light"? Please provide a specific citation.

I didn't, that is just more of Peacegirl's projection of her deficiency onto others. Obviously nothing is going to add up to Peacegirl, she simply can't comprehend anything that is sane or rational.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...no telescope has ever picked up a past event, nor has anyone on Earth seen a past event, or person, that is no longer here.

Wrong. It happens all the time. Go outside during the night and look at the stars. You will be viewing past events. Go outside during the daytime and look at the Sun. You will be viewing a past event. Go anywhere at anytime and look at anything, you will be viewing a past event. Admittedly, the events that you can view in your backyard, on the street, at the supermarket, etc., are of such recent vintage that the time which has elapsed between the event and your visual perception of it is so infinitesimally small that it gives the appearance of the event being simultaneous with the viewing of the event. This illusion of simultaneity is simply a function of the speed of light and the close physical proximity of the event. In short, whatever you see now, has always already happened then.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

NA is a working scientist. He also is not in the habit of listening to other people here on these boards.

Ain't that the truth!

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1022239]

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

.

Hun that makes no sense. That is like me posting this:

But that does not account for the snaffle which clearly flanges on the rump-pumpinosity of the distance of the afferent observation that we are acuting-up in this instance.

The reason it doesn't seem logically coherent is because you are basing your analysis on the afferent model,

I am not basing my analysis on the model. I am basing it on measurements that we have taken, and that we have confirmed using different methods, including sending a probe to the close bodies such as the moons of Jupiter. If we were so fundamentally wrong about it, we would have completely missed the damn things!

...which clearly make real time vision an impossibility.

Yes, what we measure and have checked does just that.

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.

Actually, it is the efferent model that does not explain how we experience perspective and distance perception. In the normal model we have an explanation that fits the known facts, but in yours we do not even have the slightest inkling how it is that distant objects somehow manage to affect camera sensors without anything travelling to interact with it - something which incidentally is yet another way in which your father rejected causality, while at the same time maintaining determinism, which relies on causality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

But if there is no time involved when we look out at the world [because light has no bearing on what we see externally], then there would be no temporal location, just an actual location. That would have no bearing on clock time according to one's frame of reference.

[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.

Stop it LadyShea. He knew exactly what light is, and made an accurate observation. The fact that he said the photons (or molecules) of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun indicates that he knew light doesn't get here and park, as you falsely interpreted his words to mean.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Just because something is not easy to test empirically doesn't rule out that it can't be done. It also means that there will eventually be corroborating evidence that his observations were spot on. This also means that as much as you all want to throw out Lessans' work because he didn't provide the method in which he saw these observations [that would allow you to see the same thing he saw] which was impossible for him to do under his circumstances, you are now claiming that his work is only an assertion, which is false, and is stopping you from even trying to follow his reasoning, which would allow you to see for yourself that these principles are valid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm sorry you believe that Lessans' ideas are not "absolutely proven", but you're wrong. Hubbard's Dianetics and Buddist theories are based on certain premises that are not proven. The fact that you can't see the difference between these theories and Lessans' proof of no free will, makes me wonder if you are the "right" person to analyze this work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

I am not saying neutrinos that warn us of a Supernova is a coincidence. When we hear thunder we get a warning that soon there will be lightning and it happens like clockwork. This is not a coincidence. Or when we hear the sound of an airplane, it is not a coincidence that we will see that airplane as it enters our field of vision. When I use the word "objects" I am trying to make clear that we are not seeing the object as an image that is interpreted in the brain; we are seeing the object in real time. When you start talking about seeing light itself, the conversation gets confusing. It must first be established that objects have to be in range for them to be seen in order to discuss the properties of light and whether we can see photons [efferently].

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

Oh be quiet doc. I am as rational and sane as you are, so stop the fake diagnosis bullshit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Nobody else is! They likely don't, and whether they do or not doesn't matter.

Do you even understand what we're talking about?

Yes, I understand what you're talking about.

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.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You might bet that, but it's not true. GPS satellites work on that very principle. If people used Lessans ideas, they wouldn't work! Once again, Lessans is wrong.

Seeing in real time has absolutely nothing to do with receiving satellite signals. Do you even understand what I'm talking about?

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

You're being very silly. Those words you're using, you don't really understand do you? You don't actually know what 'resolved' means, you just bring it out in the hope it will mean something. Poor thing, you really don't have a clue how a scientific understanding of optics works. Try following some of those links LadyShea provided and actually make an effort maybe?

I do know what resolved means and that word helps me to express what I'm trying to make clear. Thank you for that!

Originally Posted by Dragar

Regardless, it doesn't matter if Lessans got one or two things right. Our scientific understanding of vision gets it all right, and so far nothing wrong. Lessans gets a lot wrong.

That's because you don't see the validity of efferent vision, which explains why we can still use GPS systems and yet see in real time.

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.

No, it could be a miscalculation of how far or how large the Supernova actually is from our "in range" observations using powerful telescopes.

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.

Originally Posted by Dragar

So why do we receive the sharpnel at the same time we see the explosion, hm? As you said, the shrapnel shouldn't reach us until long after we see it, as it takes time while seeing something doesn't. Lessans is wrong. This is yet another contradiction of his predictions.

Here's the papers:

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v58/i14/p1490_1

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v58/i14/p1494_1

as if you could understand it.

Thanks for the links, but that last comment was unnecessary. The detection of light as it travels and reaches a telescope is true, but to SEE an explosion as it occurred millions of years ago due to the wavelengths finally reaching our telescopes is flawed, according to Lessans.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it could be a miscalculation of how far or how large the Supernova actually is from our "in range" observations using powerful telescopes.

And once again, it comes down to this.

You claim that experiment could test Lessans. But we have given you dozens of experiments that test his claims, and you reject them all because you don't like the answer they give.

That's called faith.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if there is no time involved when we look out at the world [because light has no bearing on what we see externally], then there would be no temporal location, just an actual location. That would have no bearing on clock time according to one's frame of reference.

And if that were true the sky would be uniformly bright white with the light of all the trillions of stars in every conceivable direction that we could see without the need to wait for the light to travel the distance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

As you can see peacegirl is oblivious to the contradiction. And is continuing to do what has been pointed out before, to deflect her failure onto others.

Peacegirl, I don't think you are retarded. A retarded person would have figured out people's objections by now and that they had nothing for it. Your not slow, you are blind to basic reasoning. It just doesn't register.

If I'm blind, that makes you blind and retarded.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

get help peacegirl. The people here have the whole book or can get if they want it. Paste the next chapter if you wish but all it will accomplish is to confirm yet again just how crazy you are.

No, it will convince everyone how determined you are to hold onto a dated worldview for fear that you will lose your entire identity. But you have nothing to fear because the truth is always better than lies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

As you can see peacegirl is oblivious to the contradiction. And is continuing to do what has been pointed out before, to deflect her failure onto others.

Peacegirl, I don't think you are retarded. A retarded person would have figured out people's objections by now and that they had nothing for it. Your not slow, you are blind to basic reasoning. It just doesn't register.

There is no contradiction, so the rest of your reasoning is the same old garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wow. You really are quite utterly insane. Totally out to lunch. Not an ounce of comprehension left. Whether or not you understood the (incredibly simple) question or not, you did change your answer to it. But that's fine. There's nothing wrong with doing so. But you are straight up lying to claim that you didn't. And for the millionth time, my questions are not based upon the afferent model, They are based only upon your answers and claims. So any appearance of inconsistency is coming from you and you alone. I was not asking you here about the speed of light or which wavelength would be seen. That is also incorrect. I have been asking you about the history of the light at the camera whose frequency you had claimed is responsible for the color of the resulting photograph. And you have again just repeated the absolutely batshit insane suggestion that a camera can take photographs - using light sensitive film - without any light present at the camera. How is that possible? How can the film chemically interact with light that is at a distance and not in contact with it? I already asked you this in the post you were replying to, but you didn't answer.

That was not an assumption of mine, or of the afferent model. That was what you had agreed to, and what you had told me happens under the efferent model. YOU said that the nature of the photograph is determined by the properties of the light at the camera, and that that light had previously travelled to get there. So again, the inconsistency is coming purely from you and not from anyone else's assumptions or position.

Great. Light interacts with the film. Next question:

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

I am not interested in the answers to my claim that you confused me on. Stop right now Spacemonkey, or I will put you on ignore for false accusations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't think it's important at all. Yet for some reason you thought it was important to point out that all of the light which comes from the sun is light which comes from the sun. I was just pointing out that this is another empty tautology.

Yes, light comes from the sun and light is finite, but I'm trying to tell you that this has absolutely nothing to do with efferent vision, and how the brain actually works. Therefore, all of your effort to prove Lessans wrong is false because you're coming from a false premise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl it doesn't appear you know what words mean. A contradiction is simply a recognition that an account conflicts with itself, it's got nothing to do with other people's objections. It's a matter of self consistency. You and Lessans become very incoherent quit often and are completely blind to it, which is what a person with cognitive dysfunction would do. You need help.

Why can't you change your mantra of "I need help". You have become quite boring even to those who appreciate your posts for what you are trying to figure out. This has nothing to do with the veracity of these claims; only that you are failing in your own attempts to prove me wrong by charging me with "mental illness" as your only defense. This can only go on for so long before people realize that it is you with the problem.