A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 267

peacegirl · #**6651** 01-27-2012, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He will also be clarifying many of the concepts by saying "quote" when he begins his elaboration and "unquote" when he's finished elaborating on a particular point.

That is of course the very best way to "quote" clarify "unquote" a concept.

It's got nothing to do with quoting people.

Why would he say the words quote and unquote for clarification purposes? I've never heard of such a strange thing

Lessans knew that his clarification would mean a lot once he's gone. I think you are trying in every possible way to discredit him because you think he's wrong, plain and simple. :sadcheer:

Clutch Munny · #**6652** 01-27-2012, 04:13 PM

Whatever you do, don't get to thinking that there's no free will and no self. Because then all the problems of the world will get solved, but you totally won't think of them as having been your problems anyhow.

Get the most bang for your crankery buck: worry about the world's problems and solve them all; or let them be and learn to be fine with everything. Not both.

naturalist.atheist · #**6653** 01-27-2012, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He will also be clarifying many of the concepts by saying "quote" when he begins his elaboration and "unquote" when he's finished elaborating on a particular point.

That is of course the very best way to "quote" clarify "unquote" a concept.

You're right, and that's exactly what he did. :yup:

You don't use quotes to quote yourself. That's ignorant.

LadyShea · #**6654** 01-27-2012, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He will also be clarifying many of the concepts by saying "quote" when he begins his elaboration and "unquote" when he's finished elaborating on a particular point.

That is of course the very best way to "quote" clarify "unquote" a concept.

It's got nothing to do with quoting people.

Why would he say the words quote and unquote for clarification purposes? I've never heard of such a strange thing

Lessans knew that his clarification would mean a lot once he's gone. How can you compare the hope of a dying man with the simple MP3 copies that are in existence today? I think you are trying in the worst possible way to discredit Lessans because you think you're smarter and more capable of reasoning than anyone on the planet. :sadcheer:

WTF are you talking about?

It's very odd to say the words "quote" and "unquote" to announce clarification or elaboration when speaking or reading or aloud . Most people would say "To clarify...." or "To elaborate..." or "To reiterate...." or use their inflection for emphasis or just communicate clearly in the first place.

I have never heard of someone saying the words "quote" and "unquote" except for actual quotations. It's strange

LadyShea · #**6655** 01-27-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halide molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?

Actual photons are interacting with the film, believe it or not LadyShea.

HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I have said over and over that efferent vision is responsible for this, and until you understand the mechanism that allows this, you will be confoudned

Saying it isn't explaining it. Saying it is making an assertion.

I am asking you to explain the mechanism, which you keep refusing to do with your weaseling

3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you're having a problem with understanding why we get a picture even though the light hasn't reached Earth

If you're having a problem answering my very simple questions it's because you can't answer them because efferent vision via camera film is nonsense.

Are you going to answer or you gonna keep weaseling?

HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halide molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?

peacegirl · #**6656** 01-27-2012, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Whatever you do, don't get to thinking that there's no free will and no self. Because then all the problems of the world will get solved, but you totally won't think of them as having been your problems anyhow.

Get the most bang for your crankery buck: worry about the world's problems and solve them all; or let them be and learn to be fine with everything. Not both.

Lessans solved the majority of the world's problems through this discovery. The rest of your comment is nonsense.

peacegirl · #**6657** 01-27-2012, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!

You're right, not if they use your reasoning that efferent vision contradicts causality. That is absurd!

Clutch Munny · #**6658** 01-27-2012, 07:04 PM

Roger. Recalibrating now.

LadyShea · #**6659** 01-27-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!

You're right, not if they use your reasoning that efferent vision contradicts causality. That is absurd!

Vivisectus' reasoning though is sound and supported by empirical observation. You have been unable to refute it

LadyShea · #**6660** 01-27-2012, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Whatever you do, don't get to thinking that there's no free will and no self. Because then all the problems of the world will get solved, but you totally won't think of them as having been your problems anyhow.

Get the most bang for your crankery buck: worry about the world's problems and solve them all; or let them be and learn to be fine with everything. Not both.

Lessans solved the majority of the world's problems through this discovery. The rest of your comment is nonsense.

They have not been solved. All you have offered is a proposed solution based on Lessans ideas, none of which have been demonstrated to be accurate.

peacegirl · #**6661** 01-27-2012, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

LOL shipping and handling for an MP3 file. Did you get ripped off by yet another unscrupulous publisher Peacegirl? MP3 files are something you download. They do not get shipped or handled. I hope you did not waste more of your savings!

You can also get them in a CD, which you can then download on your ipod or computer. I'm not signed up with an audio books website for downloading yet, so you would be getting a hard copy, not just a download.

LadyShea · #**6662** 01-27-2012, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halide molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?

Actual photons are interacting with the film, believe it or not LadyShea.

HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I have said over and over that efferent vision is responsible for this, and until you understand the mechanism that allows this, you will be confoudned

Saying it isn't explaining it. Saying it is making an assertion.

I am asking you to explain the mechanism, which you keep refusing to do with your weaseling

3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you're having a problem with understanding why we get a picture even though the light hasn't reached Earth

If you're having a problem answering my very simple questions it's because you can't answer them because efferent vision via camera film is nonsense.

Are you going to answer or you gonna keep weaseling?

HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halide molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?

davidm · #**6663** 01-27-2012, 07:15 PM

LadyShea, give it up. This woman is deeply sick and deeply dishonest. You saw her plain answer to my question about the moons of Jupiter and correcting for travel to Mars: the failure of efferent seeing is explained by efferent seeing!

She's flat-out nuts, and everyone is wasting their time. What she deserves is to be Ignored.

peacegirl · #**6664** 01-27-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Many science and kids discovery museums have photo-sensitive walls that photographically freeze your shadow. No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing us to see it. You stand in front of the wall, a bright light flashes, you step away and there's your shadow still on the wall. My son has done this several times. Have you never been anyplace or seen anything?

Exhibits: Children's Museum at Holyoke Exhibits
Reuben H. Fleet:: Discover Your 'Inner Inventor' at "Tinkering"
Discover learn-by-doing science fun - Morning Call

That's great for letting children experience hands on what a photosensitive cell is, but what does this have to do with actual sight??? This would be similar to what Dr. Oz does when he displays a constructed tunnel as if it's the rectum and he makes a person climb into it as if they're the poop. So what does that mean? Does it mean little people are actually in our intestines? :eek:

LadyShea · #**6665** 01-27-2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

LOL shipping and handling for an MP3 file. Did you get ripped off by yet another unscrupulous publisher Peacegirl? MP3 files are something you download. They do not get shipped or handled. I hope you did not waste more of your savings!

You can also get them in a CD, which you can then download on your ipod or computer. I'm not signed up with an audio books website for downloading yet, so you would be getting a hard copy, not just a download.

You don't need an audio books website, you need your own website or blog with an eCommerce solution

peacegirl · #**6666** 01-27-2012, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. Photons are constantly being emitted, that is a fact, but the only way we get the (P) photons on film/retina is when the lens of the film or retina is focused on the object. It's as simple as that. If we happen to be looking at something that is parallel to the object, those photons that are made up of the visible spectrum. The only time we actually get a mirror image of the object is when we're looking directly at it and there is enough light surrounding the object for us to see it.

When the eye focuses on an object and we see that object, what is in our peripheral vision? What about the objects in the background or off to the side that the eye is not focusing on, an object that is further away and out of focus to the eye? Do we see them if the eye is not focused on them?

We see it exactly as a mirror image, which means the peripheral vision would be blurred. It's an inverse relation to the object's absorptive properties, so it makes perfect sense.

No it doesn't quite make perfect sense to me. You state that we need to be looking directly at an object to see the mirror image of it, but the other objects around we are not looking at directly so blured or not how can we see them? Could you explain this in more detail, because right now it seems like a contradiction to say that we need to look directly at somethingto see it, but we can still see something that we are not looking directly at?

Just trying to understand this?

I won't answer you until you stop cracking jokes at Lessans' expense.

LadyShea · #**6667** 01-27-2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Many science and kids discovery museums have photo-sensitive walls that photographically freeze your shadow. No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing us to see it. You stand in front of the wall, a bright light flashes, you step away and there's your shadow still on the wall. My son has done this several times. Have you never been anyplace or seen anything?

Exhibits: Children's Museum at Holyoke Exhibits
Reuben H. Fleet:: Discover Your 'Inner Inventor' at "Tinkering"
Discover learn-by-doing science fun - Morning Call

That's great for letting children experience hands on what a photosensitive cell is, but what does this have to do with actual sight???

How does efferent vision and efferent photography explain how the shadow is seen (and can be photographed) on the wall when the person casting the shadow is no longer there?

peacegirl · #**6668** 01-27-2012, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halid molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?

Quit answering about objects and reflections, because all that is in the above example is the newly turned on Sun and the camera film. It is noon. There are no photons on Earth to be absorbed by the camera film until 12:08

How does the camera film absorb a photon, which is required to take a picture, at noon in this scenario?

A camera absorbs photons instantly the same exact way the eye sees objects in real time, which has everything to do with efferent vision. If you can't grasp this concept, it will look like a violation of physics but it's not.

peacegirl · #**6669** 01-27-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Many science and kids discovery museums have photo-sensitive walls that photographically freeze your shadow. No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing us to see it. You stand in front of the wall, a bright light flashes, you step away and there's your shadow still on the wall. My son has done this several times. Have you never been anyplace or seen anything?

A bright light flashes and you tell me there's no light at the object? What do you mean no lenses? Doesn't the camera have a lens? What are you getting at?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Exhibits: Children's Museum at Holyoke Exhibits
Reuben H. Fleet:: Discover Your 'Inner Inventor' at "Tinkering"
Discover learn-by-doing science fun - Morning Call

Producing a shadow does not require a lens, but it does require a lens to see that shadow. These museums are great for letting children experience hands on how a photosensitive cell works, but what does this have to do with actual sight???

How does efferent vision and efferent photography explain how the shadow is seen (and can be photographed) on the wall when the person casting the shadow is no longer there?

I have no idea. Could you explain.

davidm · #**6670** 01-27-2012, 07:31 PM

peacegirl · #**6671** 01-27-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

LOL shipping and handling for an MP3 file. Did you get ripped off by yet another unscrupulous publisher Peacegirl? MP3 files are something you download. They do not get shipped or handled. I hope you did not waste more of your savings!

You can also get them in a CD, which you can then download on your ipod or computer. I'm not signed up with an audio books website for downloading yet, so you would be getting a hard copy, not just a download.

You don't need an audio books website, you need your own website or blog with an eCommerce solution

I have neither at this time, so that's why I'm selling the actual CD. When I get my own website or use an audio book website, then this book can be downloaded. Until then, this is what I have available.

LadyShea · #**6672** 01-27-2012, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halid molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?

Quit answering about objects and reflections, because all that is in the above example is the newly turned on Sun and the camera film. It is noon. There are no photons on Earth to be absorbed by the camera film until 12:08

How does the camera film absorb a photon, which is required to take a picture, at noon in this scenario?

A camera absorbs photons instantly the same exact way the eye sees objects in real time, which has everything to do with efferent vision. If you can't grasp this concept, it will look like a violation of physics but it's not.

That does absolutely violate physics because that means photons are in two places at the same time. It's not a concept I need to grasp, it's a physical process you need to explain without violating the laws of physics.

Remember, in this scenario, there are no photons on Earth, at all. According to physics Photons must touch camera film to be absorbed this means they must be located in the same physical coordinates of space. How are the photons getting there in efferent vision?

Spacemonkey · #**6673** 01-27-2012, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing my best.

No, you're not. You're constantly weaselling and dishonestly avoiding simple questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about photons traveling, and even though white light is always moving, the only way we can see the object and its (P) reflection is when the lens is focused on the object, which you seem to conveniently forget.

I'm not forgetting that. The problem is that this doesn't answer my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am answering your questions, but are you actually hearing my answers?

You are NOT answering my questions. Liar. You've completely ignored one set of questions and given me contradictory responses to the second set (while ignoring my request for clarification).

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, his discovery presupposes a perfect conscience, and this is what he's trying to show, but if you don't let me present it my way people are going to get more confused than they are with this discussion, and I don't want that to happen.

Bzzt. As presuppositions they are not something he makes any attempt to show to be true. That's not what "presuppose" means.

Spacemonkey · #**6674** 01-27-2012, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

No.

Good. Not that I agree that this is correct, but I do agree that this is what you should be saying. The photons comprising the mirror image at the film at any given time must be newly existing photons which come into existence there. That avoids teleporting or stationary photons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

At the object.

Um, can you tell me why you are here giving me the location of something which you've just told me above does not exist?

If you could also answer the questions in post #6452 (without positing stationary photons) that would be good.

Peacegirl, can you explain why you contradicted yourself here? If the light at the film (when the photograph is taken) didn't exist just before the photograph was taken, then it could not have been at the object just before the photograph was taken. Non-existent things do not have locations.

So are you saying that the light at the film did exist just prior to taking the photograph and was at the object? Or that it did not exist just prior to taking the object and therefore had no location then at all?

Do you know why you contradict yourself like this, even on the simplest of matters? These were not complicated questions. They were of the very simple form: Did x exist at t? If so, then where was x at t? You appear to have completely failed to comprehend the "If so..." part.

X was traveling because photons travel, but, to repeat, you're missing the most important point in all of this and that is efferent vision. If efferent vision means we are looking out in real time, then the photons are not traveling to us with the information of the object. We are seeing the object directly because of what light is allowing us to see. The photons that are present at the film instantly (no travel time) is also due to this phenomenon, which is just a mirror image when the lens is focused on the object.

See? More dishonest weaselling with no actual answer to my question at all.

Spacemonkey · #**6675** 01-27-2012, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

One solution is to have the same photons floating there stationary at the film the whole time, but constantly changing their wavelengths to match the real-time qualities of the object. The other is to have the light previously at the film be a different set of photons from those there now such that the photons at the film are constantly being refreshed and replaced by new photons.

Which of these two options are you choosing? (The second option avoids stationary light, but requires different answers to my questions from what you've previously given.)

It's number two, because light is constantly in motion...

If the object is always absorbing certain wavelengths, then the (P) wavelengths are also being refreshed.

True, it's different light at the film...

Remember posting the above? Do you still agree with what you here posted? If so, then please answer the following keeping what you've said above in mind:

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Remember that you can't answer "At the film" to Question 2, because if the photons at the film are constantly refreshing, then the photons at the film a moment ago will not be the same photons there now and which the question is asking you about.