A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing the point. In order to see a hologram you need the lens of your eye. In order to take a picture of a hologram, you need the lens of a camera. Everything that is seen requires a lens, unless it's a lower organism that uses light in a different way.

Yes, seeing requires a lens. Just as taking a photo requires a lens. In a camera the lens forms an image from the light moving towards the film. This is an inward process or an afferent process. Light doesn't move from the film towards the object to form an image. That would be efferent. It's just a simple matter of direction. It is trivial. Like knowing how to use quotes. A moderately intelligent person would have figured out the difference by now both on the direction of light and the use of quotes.

Except for the insane Lessans family. You can repeat it thousands of times, and they just won't get it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're discussing an audio book NA.

Oh!!! This is even stupider. Lessans is saying quote/unquote to quote himself in his own book!

Peacegirl, you must want the next three generations of Lessans to be seen as complete morons.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I offered is all I have, so if it's not up to speed, I'm sorry.

What you have offered is contradictory so you have failed to show that efferent vision is even a coherent possibility.

You've spent the last 200-odd pages alternating between contradicting yourself and completely ignoring the same set of simple questions. Is that supposed to be indicative of a sane and rational mind?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing the point. In order to see a hologram you need the lens of your eye. In order to take a picture of a hologram, you need the lens of a camera. Everything that is seen requires a lens, unless it's a lower organism that uses light in a different way.

The hologram is a picture. And you don't need a lens to take it.

[Vivisectus]

Peacegirl, you must want the next three generations of Lessans to be seen as complete morons.

Mr Rafael must have been a sensible man: at least one of her offspring got a decent education, and they all stay the hell away from this nonsense.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Mr Rafael must have been a sensible man: at least one of her offspring got a decent education, and they all stay the hell away from this nonsense.

But just imagine being that child with an insane mother doing her utmost to show the Lessans insanity to as many people as possible.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

But just imagine being that child with an insane mother doing her utmost to show the Lessans insanity to as many people as possible.

I get the feeling this only started after the divorce. Just a hunch.

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This third discovery is based on presentism ...

What is presentism?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Crumb

What is presentism?

The theory of showmanship, with a minor in wool pulling.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Crumb

What is presentism?

she thinks "tons of anger" would be spewed over a discussion of presentism, which she never even heard of until she learned about it from me.

Silly doofus she is. Her lies and dishonesty are what bring sharp reactions, nothing else. We laugh at the buffoon Lessans.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Crumb

What is presentism?

The central premise is, wherever you are, you are present.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by davidm

she thinks "tons of anger" would be spewed over a discussion of presentism, which she never even heard of until she learned about it from me.

Silly doofus she is. Her lies and dishonesty are what bring sharp reactions, nothing else. We laugh at the buffoon Lessans.

Yes, yes, yes, Lessans and peacegirl are buffoons.

But look how many hours we've spent posting refutations and insults.

Who is the bigger buffoon?

[Crumb]

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Yes, yes, yes, Lessans and peacegirl are buffoons.

But look how many hours we've spent posting refutations and insults.

Who is the bigger buffoon?

As previously mentioned, these threads have spawned many thoughtful scientific and philosophical discussions, so for that reason alone they are worth it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Crumb

What is presentism?

Presentism is the philosophical thesis that only present objects, events and people are actual. It stands in distinction to eternalism, which is the thesis that there are actual non-present objects.

IOW, the presentist maintains that only "now" is real; the future will become real but is not yet; and the past used to be real, but no longer exists.

The eternalist maintains that all locations in time exist, in the same way that all locations in space exist. This makes "now" an indexical, like "here." Wherever and whenever you are, automatically, is "here and now," but all other locations in time and space also exist. Thus Socrates exists; he just does not exist "now" as we who are conversing count "now."

There is a huge literature on this stuff and it's quite fascinating. Suffice it to say that the theory of relativity provides strong support for eternalism, and makes presentism almost certainly false.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Higher organisms have lenses which is essential for seeing. Lower organisms only detect light. They do not see objects.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the terms "higher organisms" and "lower organisms" are biologically meaningless at best (and betray a fundamental lack of understanding of basic biological principles at worst), I have a simple question.

Wanna bet? Please, bet lots.

[davidm]

TLR, you know by now she just says whatever pops into her head; she doesn't even know herself what she is talking about.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by davidm

As previously mentioned, these threads have spawned many thoughtful scientific and philosophical discussions, so for that reason alone they are worth it.

We could have read several books the caliber of Briane Greene's The Elegant Universe in the time we've taken to hover over this thread, and we would have been much better off. There are no more excuses.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that is interacting with the film/retina is light. I wonder if anyone wants to discuss the other discovery, or are we done?

Now we are getting somewhere, light interacts with the film/retina, and we know light travels at c so Peacegirl has confirmed that vision is time-delayed and not instant, Photographs are not polaroid after all.

If you want to discuss another discovery, what is stopping you? Just lay it out and hope for the best. You have said that you are an optimist, the glass is half full, or there is someone out there who will believe this?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Now we are getting somewhere, light interacts with the film/retina, and we know light travels at c so Peacegirl has confirmed that vision is time-delayed and not instant, Photographs are not polaroid after all.

But Peacegirl thinks there can be light at the film/retina which has either instantly come into existence there somehow matching the real-time properties of objects as it does so, or which has instantaneously teleported there from the surface of the object being seen or photographed. She doesn't agree that the light at the film/retina must have travelled to get there, or that it will represent dated information once present.

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you want to discuss another discovery, what is stopping you? Just lay it out and hope for the best. You have said that you are an optimist, the glass is half full, or there is someone out there who will believe this?

She has no intention of explaining or defending anything. Her conception of 'discussion' is her copypasting the whole chapter for everyone to read, and then having other ask polite and non-challenging clarificatory questions which she will then successfully answer in a manner everyone will accept as adequate without further question. Oddly enough, her actual discussions never seem to turn out like this, and of course it always turns out to be the fault of her unreasonably biased and ignorant audience.

[naturalist.atheist]

Peacegirl seems to think that a lens is necessary in order to see. Since she swears that nothing she is proposing at all conflicts with optics then the lens must be forming an image. A lens forms an image by bending the path of light that passes through it. It does this by a process called refraction. Refraction is what happens to light when it changes speed going from one material to another. The more the difference in the speed of light between the air and the glass of lens the more the light will be bent and the shorter the focal length of the lens. Now here is the thing. In order for refraction to work the light has to be travelling at different speeds as it traverses the space from object to image. It can't teleport because it must pass through the lens to bend and it has to be travelling at a finite speed in order that it travel at different speeds when it crosses from air to glass and glass to air.

So there is no way that given that a lens is necessary to form an image by satisfying the physics of optics and still be consistent with any of the mechanisms that peacegirl has postulated for efferent vision.

Good luck getting peacegirl to understand any of it let alone agree with it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But Peacegirl thinks there can be light at the film/retina which has either instantly come into existence there somehow matching the real-time properties of objects as it does so, or which has instantaneously teleported there from the surface of the object being seen or photographed. She doesn't agree that the light at the film/retina must have travelled to get there, or that it will represent dated information once present.

She has no intention of explaining or defending anything. Her conception of 'discussion' is her copypasting the whole chapter for everyone to read, and then having other ask polite and non-challenging clarificatory questions which she will then successfully answer in a manner everyone will accept as adequate without further question. Oddly enough, her actual discussions never seem to turn out like this, and of course it always turns out to be the fault of her unreasonably biased and ignorant audience.

Does that make me hopelessly optimistic?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl seems to think that a lens is necessary in order to see. Since she swears that nothing she is proposing at all conflicts with optics then the lens must be forming an image. A lens forms an image by bending the path of light that passes through it. It does this by a process called refraction. Refraction is what happens to light when it changes speed going from one material to another. The more the difference in the speed of light between the air and the lens the more the light will be bent and the shorter the focal length of the lense. Now here is the thing. In order for refraction to work the light has to be travelling at different speeds as it traverses the space from object to image. It can't teleport because it must pass through the lens to bend and it has to be travelling at a finite speed in order that it travel at different speeds when it crosses from air to glass and glass to air.

So there is no way that given that a lens is necessary to form an image and still satisfy the physics of optics and be consistent with any of the mechanisms that peacegirl has postulated.

Good luck getting peacegirl to understand any of it let alone agree with it.

So Einstein was right, c only applies to light in a vacuum, and when light encounters some obstruction like air or glass it just gets tired and sad and slows down, but then cheers up again when it gets back into the vacuum of open space? I wonder what else Einstein was right about?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

We could have read several books the caliber of Briane Greene's The Elegant Universe in the time we've taken to hover over this thread, and we would have been much better off. There are no more excuses.

There are no excuses? So say you! If you don't want to post in the thread, don't post in it. This is a discussion board. One could in theory make the same response to ANY thread; that in the time it took to read/write it, several books could have been read. But I assume that most people who post to message boards do so because they like doing so.

In the time it took me to read/write in this thread, not only did I learn quite a bit from The Lone Ranger among others, but I also wrote my own content that sharpened my thinking on various subjects like relativity and the philosophy of time. And all that didn't stop me from reading a number of books in real life, and finishing a collaborative 100,000 word novel that we are submitting to a publisher next week.

So, I suspect most of us are doing quite well in this thread.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl seems to think that a lens is necessary in order to see.

Peacegirl has been perfectly clear in stating her position that, except in those few cases where they are not required, lenses are absolutely required for any image to ever be formed or seen.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

A lens forms an image by bending the path of light that passes through it. It does this by a process called refraction. Refraction is what happens to light when it changes speed going from one material to another. The more the difference in the speed of light between the air and the lens the more the light will be bent and the shorter the focal length of the lens.

Nope. Lenses are magic. And this is perfectly consistent with (her level of understanding of) optics. Except it only makes sense when you already understand (i.e. accept without question) efferent vision.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Good luck getting peacegirl to understand any of it let alone agree with it.

How many times must she tell you...[insert list of blatantly false assertions about reality and her own position here]...?