A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

I suggest folks still engaging with peacegirl check out the Baut thread here, in which very wise advice resides in the latest three posts (as of my posting now) in that thread. The basic advice to all of us is: walk away.

As for this side discussion with ThreeLawsSafe, I have no interest in it, nor will I be reading further posts from him. I only want to make the general point that "mental illness" is ill-defined. It is funny how he should correctly admonish us not to diagnose people as mentally ill over the Internet, and then proceed to label five historical figures as "mentally ill" whom he never met on the Internet or in person; and it's funny that he should be insinuating that N.A. is mentally ill, and thereby doing the very thing he warns everyone else not to do. I call that hypocrisy.

There is no doubt that people have mental dysfunctinos that can impair their lives. Depression is one such example. But depression and other disorders and rather carefully defined and somewhat understood; "mentally ill" is a catch-all category that can -- and most assuredly has -- been used to demonize and marginalize out groups.

I plead mea culpa on characterizing peacegirl as mentally ill; but I would say that I was doing so more in the colloquial, folk sense of the term as one might bandy about "your nuts!" Really, her claims certainly ARE nuts, and no longer worth dealing with. She has been shown hundreds of times why Lessans is wrong; she is currently ignoring, for instance, not just how we send spacecraft to distant worlds, but the neutrino spillover of supernova which PROVES that we are seeing, at our eyes, a distant object that no longer exists (i.e., is "out of range," on her own bizarre terminology.)

What I would say is abundanty and unequivocally true about peacegirl is that she is wholly irrational (where "irrational" says nothing about illness). Even when presented with proof positive that Lessans was wrong (and this has been done more times than one can count) she still rejects the proof and clings to her fantasy world. That is practically the very definition of irrational thinking.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually that WAS answered. The answer is: that happens all the time, but you do not notice it much, since even the moon is only about a light-second and a half away.

We watch supernovas that are long gone. And we KNOW they are long gone, because we do not just detect the light of a supernova event: we detect neutrinos as well, roughly in the same timeframe, despite the fact that the supernova is many thousands of lightyears away.

This has been well-covered, but Peacegirl just conveniently forgets it at random intervals.

in the context of peacegirl's illness, she postulates a form of vision where the flow of information is efferent, not afferent. Hence the need for mechanisms of eventual perception that do not rely strictly on light.

At the core if it is scrambled reasoning and perception due to a mental illness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That directly contradicts your claim that the film cannot interact with anything not in direct contact with it. The light surrounding the object cannot also be in contact with the film without being in two places at once.

Wrong, 100% wrong Spacemonkey. I don't know whether I can break through this learned ignorance that everyone in here is conditioned by. I really don't know. I may be barking up the wrong tree in trying to share this knowledge with you people. To think this was all a waste of time makes me cringe.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Fuck off!!!!! If anyone is mentally ill, IT IS YOU Natural.atheist, but you've attached your illness onto me. EVERYONE CAN SEE THROUGH YOU!!!!

But do we see through him efferently or afferently?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That directly contradicts your claim that the film cannot interact with anything not in direct contact with it. The light surrounding the object cannot also be in contact with the film without being in two places at once.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong, 100% wrong Spacemonkey. I don't know whether I can break through this learned ignorance that everyone in here is conditioned by.

How camera film works is not a learned belief subject to incorrect interpretation. Humans invented it, and humans manufacture it, and therefore know exactly how it works. It must be in physical contact, meaning it must be in the same exact location, with photons of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Nice ad hominem. So, because a science once made an error, then the whole of that science is therefore debunked. Newton's laws were overturned by Einstein's relativity, so therefore all of physics is meaningless. Stephen Hawking, you're an idiot, oh mighty thinker. That makes a lot of sense.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and your ignorance is deeply disturbing. I suggest you actually do some research in the areas on which you profess to soapbox.

For example, you might look at some of the peer-reviewed work on Van Gogh's mental illness, which says definitively that he suffered from manic episodes. While we can't say definitively (and I never did) what he had, some suggest temporal lobe disfunction, others suggest bipolar disorder. Those are acceptable possibilities. Either way, he had what were clearly a form of clinical hypomania at times.

I am an artist myself, and have worked with and studied artists with mental illness all my career. Many, many artists suffer from mental disorders, and many of them have documented how they work during manic episodes. Some, like Van Gogh, admit that they depend on their manic episodes for work, and that they can't work in down periods. It's not uncommon, and Van Gogh's letters clearly indicate heightened manic episodes during periods of work.

As much respect as I've had for you in some other posts, here you're barking up the wrong tree.

Yep, you did. Right here.

I suggest you take some reading lessons and actually read your own posts. I suggest you actually read some Van Gogh. I suggest you read more than just a little Foucault (whose expertise in Psychology proper was minimal). I suggest you read the extensive literature in psychology that shows cross-cultural agreement on diagnosis of mental disorders, as well as heavily brain-based research in neuroscience over the last 10 years confirming so much of what we've already discovered. Have a look at the DSM-IV (or the V, coming soon), and look at the cross-applications with neuroscience and international research in peer-reviewed work, and then tell me you know something about psychology.

Because as of right now, it's fairly obvious that you don't know jack shit, you little prick.

David, I know this post is not directed to me, but I have to say that in this instance I agree with you. Why the name calling ThreeLawsSafe? Why are you so defensive if you are so sure of yourself? Mental illness is often a behavior pattern that can be labeled and then treated with psychotrophics, which is often due to the profit margin made by these drugs. Being gay is not a behavior pattern that can be identified as abnormal and then treated accordingly. There is a danger that is lurking in the mental health industry that could have long lasting repercussions because of this labeling process. Unless someone is truly suffering or hurting others, we have no right to tell anyone that their behavior doesn't fit society's definition of normal.

[Vivisectus]

When we look at the sky, due to the fact that the object is within visual range means that there is an instant interaction between the light surrounding the object and the film/retina

That is in direct contradiction to causality as well. Which is kind of funny, as causality is required in order to have any kind of determinism - and that includes Lessans determinism.

So not only is it impossible - it actually contradicts the book itself. It is not even internally consistent.

[LadyShea]

To think this was all a waste of time makes me cringe.

Do you have a better idea of the objections people have and the arguments/evidence used to support their objections? You said you had never thought about light in relation to efferent vision, now you have. That might be helpful to you as you move on to some other venue or group of people...therefore not a waste of time, an experience that you learned something from.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by davidm

I suggest folks still engaging with peacegirl check out the Baut thread here, in which very wise advice resides in the latest three posts (as of my posting now) in that thread. The basic advice to all of us is: walk away.

As for this side discussion with ThreeLawsSafe, I have no interest in it, nor will I be reading further posts from him. I only want to make the general point that "mental illness" is ill-defined. It is funny how he should correctly admonish us not to diagnose people as mentally ill over the Internet, and then proceed to label five historical figures as "mentally ill" whom he never met on the Internet or in person; and it's funny that he should be insinuating that N.A. is mentally ill, and thereby doing the very thing he warns everyone else not to do. I call that hypocrisy.

There is no doubt that people have mental dysfunctinos that can impair their lives. Depression is one such example. But depression and other disorders and rather carefully defined and somewhat understood; "mentally ill" is a catch-all category that can -- and most assuredly has -- been used to demonize and marginalize out groups.
.

For the record, I never diagnosed anyone on this board, including N.A., with "mental illness." I do reserve the right to assess that Vincent Van Gogh had some kind of dysfunction (probably Temporal Lobe Epilepsy or Bipolar Disorder or both) because of the vast peer-reviewed research published on him. But davidm refuses to acknowledge that I was tentative even in the face of the broad research, and only noted that we're sure Van Gogh had manic episodes that affected his artistic output. This is well-documented, and davidm's railings do nothing to diminish that.

There is also some research (though not as extensive as on Van Gogh) on the other historical figures I've named, including Hemingway and Woolf, both of whom committed suicide. I listed these names to show that there are many people who have been assessed with some kind of mental dysfunction who contributed great things. I was by no means demonizing anyone.

I want to note that davidm is quitting the conversation because he's on the wrong side of a losing argument.

1) He implied that psychology is devoid of merit because homosexuality was once assessed as a mental illness. He never replied to my retort that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when other sciences make mistakes and then correct them.

2) He argues that "most" of psychological diagnosis of mental-illness is socially constructed. He brings no evidence to the table except an assertion and a proclamation to read Foucault.

3) He admonishes me for being inconsistent on when I may diagnose mental-illness. But I have been entirely consistent. I have not diagnosed anyone on this board. I have made statements about Vincent Van Gogh based upon well-documented research in peer-reviewed journals. I see no inconsistency here.

4) He also implies that my argument is incorrect because my profession has something to gain in diagnosing mental-illness. I called him on that ad hominem. He asserts that this was not an ad hominem, but it clearly fits that criteria.

Given the ignorance of his statements in this area, I'm happy that davidm intends no longer to comment. I suggest he begin to read some literature in modern psychology before he soapboxes next time.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you have a better idea of the objections people have and the arguments/evidence used to support their objections? You said you had never thought about light in relation to efferent vision, now you have. That might be helpful to you as you move on to some other venue or group of people...therefore not a waste of time, an experience that you learned something from.

This assumes that peacegirl is capable of learning in any meaningful way. I contend that she is not as evidenced by these and other threads. Her brain is too dysfunctional.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, I know this post is not directed to me, but I have to say that in this instance I agree with you. Why the name calling ThreeLawsSafe? Why are you so defensive if you are so sure of yourself? Mental illness is often a behavior pattern that can be labeled and then treated with psychotrophics, which is often due to the profit margin made by these drugs. Being gay is not a behavior pattern that can be identified as abnormal and then treated accordingly. There is a danger that is lurking in the mental health industry that could have long lasting repercussions because of this labeling process. Unless someone is truly suffering or hurting others, we have no right to tell anyone that their behavior doesn't fit society's definition of normal.

I'm defensive here because Davidm is making definitive statements in ignorance about an area in which I work, but about which he is clearly mistaken, and even mean-spirited.

I agree with you that psychiatrists over-prescribe medication for patients. I'm not a psychiatrist, however; I'm an LMHC. I don't prescribe medication.

Homosexuality has not been officially diagnosed as a mental-illness for several decades. I agree it was a mistake. But all sciences make mistakes. That doesn't diminish their present-day value.

Of course labeling people's disorders can have long-lasting effects. That's why we're so careful not to label people until we have sufficient evidence. Again, I haven't labelled anyone on this board. I labelled Vincent Van Gogh on the basis of decades of peer-reviewed research and assessment by hundreds of mental-health professionals, including those who knew Van Gogh. That is entirely within the boundaries of professionalism, and is by no means a "demonization" of Van Gogh. The man could hardly have helped it if he had Temporal Lobe Epilepsy or Bipolar Disorder. My original post was to show that people with obvious psychological disorders can produce greats works of art or science.

So I'm not quite sure what your complaint is, peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How camera film works is not a learned belief subject to incorrect interpretation. Humans invented it, and humans manufacture it, and therefore know exactly how it works. It must be in physical contact, meaning it must be in the same exact location, with photons of light.

I understand that photons must be in the same location, but efferent vision allows this to take place. Until you understand this, you will keep repeating that this is magic over and over again, and it's not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

This assumes that peacegirl is capable of learning in any meaningful way. I contend that she is not as evidenced by these and other threads. Her brain is too dysfunctional.

NA is so vindictive (for what reason I don't know; I never did anything to him to warrant this kind of reaction) that I will have to put him on ignore permanently, and hope people will do the same. I do wish there would be a warning to people that this type of behavior is unacceptable, as it's interfering with a productive discussion. Tomato throwing in a public arena whether it is in a sports competition or a political discussion would never be allowed, so why is it being allowed online? I am pretty open minded but when someone keeps flooding someone else's thread with libel and defamation of character, he has crossed the line. This needs to be taken seriously by the administrators as it's messing up a fruitful discussion. Unfortunately, threats are sometimes the only thing that will work. As long as someone is allowed to throw stones, he will continue doing so (in the name of free speech) knowing that no one will lift a finger to stop him because the rules allow him to hurt others with impunity. He should be given forewarning to stop or else risk being banned. I have no idea where this guy is coming from, but it certainly has nothing to do with me or the veracity of this knowledge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you have a better idea of the objections people have and the arguments/evidence used to support their objections? You said you had never thought about light in relation to efferent vision, now you have. That might be helpful to you as you move on to some other venue or group of people...therefore not a waste of time, an experience that you learned something from.

That's true LadyShea, I have learned a lot as far as how to explain this model in terms of light, and I have this group to thank since it only confirms what I knew all along. Lessans was right!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is in direct contradiction to causality as well. Which is kind of funny, as causality is required in order to have any kind of determinism - and that includes Lessans determinism.

So not only is it impossible - it actually contradicts the book itself. It is not even internally consistent.

There is nothing that contradicts causality if you understand the basic model, which you obviously don't. And the fact that you bring determinism up as if you have completely forgotten the definition he is proposing, makes me think that my explanation of this knowledge has fallen on two deaf ears.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that photons must be in the same location, but efferent vision allows this to take place. Until you understand this, you will keep repeating that this is magic over and over again, and it's not.

You're weaseling again by answering about vision. The question I have asked for weeks now involves Lessans claims and your subsequent claims regarding the Sun being newly turned on at noon and photographing the sun. Not seeing the sun

1. Lessans claims if the Sun was turned on at noon, we would be able to see the Sun with our efferent vision at noon. We would have to await the photons to arrive on Earth 8.5 minutes later to see each other though. So 12:08

2. You claimed that we would be able to PHOTOGRAPH the Sun at noon, the same time we could see it, meaning we would not have to await the arrival of the photons at 12:08 to photograph the Sun

3. We know, for a fact, and you just now agreed, that in order to take a photograph, photons and camera film must be in the same location

So, how can the photons and camera film be in the same location at noon, if the photons have not yet arrived on Earth from the newly ignited Sun and the camera film has not traveled to the Sun

Will you or won't you answer this question?

[Dragar]

To elaborate on why peacegirl's notions break determinsim:

peacegirl tells us that we see in realtime. So if the Sun gets turned on or a star explodes or a light flashes across the room, we see such a thing at the same time, no delay involved.

In other words, these two events are simultaneous - when the sun gets turned on, we simultaneously see it get turned on.

Unfortunately for peacegirl, special relativity tells us that simultaneity is only relative!

So even if peacegirl is correct that from our perspective, we see the sun turn on simultaneously with it actually being turned on, anyone in a different frame of reference (say someboy on a train going past) will correctly conclude that one thing happens before the other - in some cases with our seeing the sun turn on before it actually happens.

Another contradiction for peacegirl!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I suggest folks still engaging with peacegirl check out the Baut thread here, in which very wise advice resides in the latest three posts (as of my posting now) in that thread. The basic advice to all of us is: walk away.

As for this side discussion with ThreeLawsSafe, I have no interest in it, nor will I be reading further posts from him. I only want to make the general point that "mental illness" is ill-defined. It is funny how he should correctly admonish us not to diagnose people as mentally ill over the Internet, and then proceed to label five historical figures as "mentally ill" whom he never met on the Internet or in person; and it's funny that he should be insinuating that N.A. is mentally ill, and thereby doing the very thing he warns everyone else not to do. I call that hypocrisy.

There is no doubt that people have mental dysfunctinos that can impair their lives. Depression is one such example. But depression and other disorders and rather carefully defined and somewhat understood; "mentally ill" is a catch-all category that can -- and most assuredly has -- been used to demonize and marginalize out groups.

I plead mea culpa on characterizing peacegirl as mentally ill; but I would say that I was doing so more in the colloquial, folk sense of the term as one might bandy about "your nuts!"

I never felt that you were using that term in a literal sense, even when you were making a big joke out of this book at my expense.

Originally Posted by davidm

Really, her claims certainly ARE nuts, and no longer worth dealing with. She has been shown hundreds of times why Lessans is wrong; she is currently ignoring, for instance, not just how we send spacecraft to distant worlds, but the neutrino spillover of supernova which PROVES that we are seeing, at our eyes, a distant object that no longer exists (i.e., is "out of range," on her own bizarre terminology.)

Sorry, but these claims are not nuts. You are just responding to a perceived threat to your entire worldview. I am sorry that this knowledge has done this to you when it is the most nurturing book you could ever want to read, considering it has the power to eliminate all war, and crime, and hatred between man and man. So how bad can it be?

Originally Posted by davidm

What I would say is abundanty and unequivocally true about peacegirl is that she is wholly irrational (where "irrational" says nothing about illness). Even when presented with proof positive that Lessans was wrong (and this has been done more times than one can count) she still rejects the proof and clings to her fantasy world. That is practically the very definition of irrational thinking.

Sorry, but I don't fit the profile.

Here are 10 irrational thoughts that rational people often fall victim to at one point or another:

1. Mistakes are never acceptable. If I make one, it means that I am incompetent.

We all make mistakes and hopefully we learn from them. I don't feel incompetent just because I don't get something right the first time, or even the hundredth time, as long as I keep trying to improve.

2. When somebody disagrees with me, it is a personal attack against me.

Not at all. The only time I feel personally attacked is when people personally attack me and refuse to stay on topic.

3. To be content in life, I must be liked by all people.

That's an impossible goal. No matter who you are, some people are not going to like you.

4. My true value as an individual depends on what others think of me.

I learned that's not true a long time ago. If I believed this, do you think I'd still be defending this knowledge?

5. If I am not involved in an intimate relationship, I am completely alone.

One can be alone and not feel alone. It's normal though to want to have an intimate connection with someone and I agree with ThreeLawsSafe that it's difficult to develop this kind of intimacy in a virtual world.

6. There is no grey area. Success is black and failure is white.

The grey area is where most of us reside unless we're discussing something that is undeniable, such as this discovery.

7. Nothing ever turns out the way you want it to.

That's just seeing the glass half empty. I try to see the glass half full as much as possible.

8. If the outcome was not perfect, it was a complete failure.

Even if I leave here, it wasn't a complete failure, as I told LadyShea. There is always something to learn in every situation.


9. I am in absolute control of my life. If something bad happens, it is my fault.

Actually, none of us are in complete control of our lives. All we can do is the best we can as each new situation presents itself.

10. The past always repeats itself. If it was true then, it must be true now.

The past may repeat itself if we don't see our patterns, but for the most part the past is gone and as Dr. Phil says, the best predictor of the future is what we do today.

10 Irrational Thoughts Rational People Often Think

So now you have it. I don't think I'm irrational at all, and the fact that you accuse me of this just means that I hit a nerve, which I never purposely meant to do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Is that with or without glasses?

Has anyone noticed that, although this was intended to be sarcastic, it was the first time he didn't include the term "mentally ill" in his response??

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then what, according to Lessans, is that fixed visual range?

As far as a certain species is capable of seeing with a 20/20 visual acuity.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as a certain species is capable of seeing with a 20/20 visual acuity.

Excellent! So we can see as far as we can see, when we can see well!

One for the list, that is.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now you have it. I don't think I'm irrational at all, and the fact that you accuse me of this just means that I hit a nerve, which I never purposely meant to do.

Oh, no, we're all sure you're quite irrational. Just because you found a website of common irrational thoughts means nothing. Three Laws Safe hit it right on the head with "Escalation of commitment."

Honestly ask yourself this question: Can you tolerate the possibility that Lessans was wrong?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here are 10 irrational thoughts that rational people often fall victim to at one point or another:

1. Mistakes are never acceptable. If I make one, it means that I am incompetent.

We all make mistakes and hopefully we learn from them. I don't feel incompetent just because I don't get something right the first time, or even the hundredth time, as long as I keep trying to improve.

2. When somebody disagrees with me, it is a personal attack against me.

Not at all. The only time I feel personally attacked is when people personally attack me and refuse to stay on topic.

3. To be content in life, I must be liked by all people.

That's an impossible goal. No matter who you are, some people are not going to like you.

4. My true value as an individual depends on what others think of me.

I learned that's not true a long time ago. If I believed this, do you think I'd still be defending this knowledge?

5. If I am not involved in an intimate relationship, I am completely alone.

One can be alone and not feel alone. It's normal though to want to have an intimate connection with someone and I agree with ThreeLawsSafe that it's difficult to develop this kind of intimacy in a virtual world.

6. There is no grey area. Success is black and failure is white.

The grey area is where most of us reside unless we're discussing something that is undeniable, such as this discovery.

7. Nothing ever turns out the way you want it to.

That's just seeing the glass half empty. I try to see the glass half full as much as possible.

8. If the outcome was not perfect, it was a complete failure.

Even if I leave here, it wasn't a complete failure, as I told LadyShea. There is always something to learn in every situation.


9. I am in absolute control of my life. If something bad happens, it is my fault.

Actually, none of us are in complete control of our lives. All we can do is the best we can as each new situation presents itself.

10. The past always repeats itself. If it was true then, it must be true now.

The past may repeat itself if we don't see our patterns, but for the most part the past is gone and as Dr. Phil says, the best predictor of the future is what we do today.

So now you have it. I don't think I'm irrational at all, and the fact that you accuse me of this just means that I hit a nerve, which I never purposely meant to do.

Well my take on some of these questions

1. Peacegirl has never learned from her mistakes, she keeps making the same ones over again.

2. Peacegirl reacts as if any disagreement with herself or the Book is a personal attack.

3. People may not dislike Peacegirl but the dislike what she says.

4. Peacegirl seems to have placed her value as a person in this book.

5. Even though there have been opertunities, Peacegirl does not seem to have formed any healthy relationships on line.

6. Peacegirl is acting as if the book is absolutely right and the rest of the world is wrong.

7. Peacegirl certainly fits this one, extremely over-optimistic. She actually believes that someone, somewhere is going to believe this book.

8. Except that Peacegirl does not appear to have learned anything.

9. Peacegirls failure here is not her fault, its everyone else is wrong.

10. Peacegirl has been repeating the same mistakes for 10 years at least, with no sign of learning or improvement.

Just my opinion.

[thedoc]

Was looking at this and I was wondering if Peacegirls swings from hostility to almost condecending careing could be signs of this condition?

Bipolar disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're weaseling again by answering about vision. The question I have asked for weeks now involves Lessans claims and your subsequent claims regarding the Sun being newly turned on at noon and photographing the sun. Not seeing the sun

1. Lessans claims if the Sun was turned on at noon, we would be able to see the Sun with our efferent vision at noon. We would have to await the photons to arrive on Earth 8.5 minutes later to see each other though. So 12:08

2. You claimed that we would be able to PHOTOGRAPH the Sun at noon, the same time we could see it, meaning we would not have to await the arrival of the photons at 12:08 to photograph the Sun

3. We know, for a fact, and you just now agreed, that in order to take a photograph, photons and camera film must be in the same location

So, how can the photons and camera film be in the same location at noon, if the photons have not yet arrived on Earth from the newly ignited Sun and the camera film has not traveled to the Sun

Will you or won't you answer this question?