A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your not understanding it doesn't make it bullshit.

N.I.H. (Hot Invented Here) there are many people who think if they don't know about it, then it can't be real or true, they reject anything outside their experience. Once in HS I commented about 'tuning' a kettle drum, the other student burst out that 'You can't tune a drum, from now on I'm not going to believe anything you say'. He had never heard of such a thing therefore it was not true, there are some very narrow minded people in the world.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have to start on Earth to know what's going in Space.

And that is exactly what science has done, scientists have made observations on Earth for a long time and now with the space age they have verified those observations. Physics and light behave the same in space as they do on Earth, so any observation we make in space is just as valid as the observations we make on Earth. Physics and optics are the same throughout the universe, the same rules and theories apply everywhere even if we do not understand all the rules the ones that have been discovered work without fail.

[davidm]

Uh-oh, she's been given her meds and let out of the strait jacket! Now she's in her Computer Room Therapy Session, and all reinvigorated, she is spamming the boards with Lessansmania!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have to start on Earth to know what's going in Space.

Hey, cuckoo clock, it has already been repeatedly pointed out to you that we can measure the light speed delay, and hence prove delayed time seeing, with simple experiments right here on earth. Do you want me to link the relevant material to you yet again?

In addition, it was Lessans who used astronomical observations to "support" his ridiculous ideas, so to now disinherit those examples would be to dishonor Daddy!

Finally, the laws of physics are the same everywhere at all distances, so to make an artificial distinction between physics on earth, and physics at astronomical distances, is just to be stoopid again.

[LadyShea]

I understand time just like you do

Uh, no

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as time, it is always in relation to our units of measurement. But to say that time exists without humans to measure its passage is like saying time is conscious of itself

How can time exist outside of ourselves when all we have is the present? There is no past or future except in our memories. Without our memory of the past, or our thinking about what's to come, we would only be cognizant of this moment in time. post

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can anyone measure time as if it's a thing? We measure the effects of time, not time itself. Post

Originally Posted by peacgirl

Exactly. That's (atomic clocks) an objective measurement of time. But this subjective measurement of time, is not proven at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

time itself is a manmade construct and doesn't exist except in relation to ourselves.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NOOOOOOOOOOOO LADYSHEA, GET OVER IT ALREADY. YOU'RE COMPLETELY WRONG BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE FIRST THING ABOUT EFFERENT VISION, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FINITE SPEED OF LIGHT.

You have failed to explain how this feat could be accomplished within the known laws of physics. You have failed to even provide a model within your own idea of "what's going on" whereby a photon at the Sun is simultaneously being absorbed by matter (in the form of camera film) on Earth. Tht is two separate locations in space. Efferent vision is long on claims and short on explanations.

Not my fault you believe the impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The point that needs to be stressed, though -- and this is why, with all respect, it puzzles me why you and LadyShea keeping going round the mulberry bush with her on this -- is that it just isn't true that we see in real time. That is the point that needs to be stressed. Since we know we don't see in real time from examples by now too numerous to number, why discuss her nonsensical attempts to account for real-time seeing? There is no real-time seeing, as everyone but peacegirl knows, so if anything what should be done is her feet should be held to the fire on explaining the Mars and Jupiter's moons examples, among many others.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You could do that, but it won't work any better than anything else. She'll just dig her toes in and insist upon mysterious unknown factors despite being unable to specify what they are or how they might help. Nothing anyone says is going to have any impact on her at all. The delusion is just too strong, and she'll just blatantly ignore anything which is too difficult for her to face up to. You could try pressing her on how appealing to such unknown factors renders her position entirely immune to evidence, but she's ignored that twice already.

It all comes down to which aspect of her lunacy fascinates you more. Personally, I'd like to see what would happen if she were to make a serious attempt to develop a consistent model of even just the most basic aspects of efferent vision. But she has no interest in doing that, likely because she fears discovering just how implausible it really is. I'd also like to see her try to show where Lessans allegedly supports his presuppositions about conscience. But she won't do that because at some level she knows there are no such examples to be found. I'd also be interested in a discussion of his third non-discovery, but she seems to already be aware that this aspect of his work is even more ridiculous than the first two non-discoveries.

I have come to the conclusion that you are all too smart to give up on these discoveries. That's why you're sticking with me even if you don't see the validity of them quite yet. Spacemonkey, when did I say that I have no interest in attempting to show where Lessans supports his presuppositions (which word I have a problem with because it sounds like he started out with an assumption as to how the world works before he proved it, which is wrong) about conscience, and when did I ever show you that I wasn't trying to create a model of sight that would explain what is actually happening in reality? After all, isn't the truth what we're all searching for?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong.

You must be using a different physics of optics I was trained and practiced in that has nothing to do with what is called science.

That's fine. I wonder though if your misuse of words is accidental or deliberate. I sometimes think that you want to make everyone as confused as you are. And I'm sure your tactics work on children (I pity yours) but I am surprised that by now you haven't realized that they don't work that well on adults.

Then again, maybe you are in it for the abuse. (Yet another peacegirl mental problem?)

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong.

This has nothing to do with light. Efferent vision has to do with the brain. It is more than trivial. It is exceedingly significant. This is a perfect example of how dumb you really are.

Are you even aware that in the text above you said that a lens is required to see? Or are you unable to connect the dots like any five year old can do?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

The entertainment value has somewhat faded for me, too. It was curious to see how she'd react when faced with facts too obvious to deny that Lessans was completely wrong on a point, but after playing the 'I don't know but I'm sure magic did it!' card a few times, even the intellectual puzzle of figuring out entertaining, novel, or just the simple cleanest falsification doesn't hold any further appeal.

I don't think it's impossible she could ever realise she's clearly wrong, but that was never really an expectation of mine.

Dragar, how could the entertainment value diminish when I never played the "I don't know but I'm sure magic did it!" card? I was hoping that people were not viewing this thread for entertainment value only (although it sure is fascinating to see how people dodge the issue and then tell me I'm nuts), but I guess I was wrong.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have come to the conclusion that you are all too smart to give up on these discoveries.

Yes, you would come to that conclusion, just like you came to the conclusion that we see in real time even though it has been proven that we don't. This is a perfect example of how you allegedly think.

A small number of people stick to this thread because it is like rubbernecking at a giant car wreck, or lingering at the world's biggest freak show. It's addictive in a certain way, though perhaps not healthy for us. Nevertheless, a point in favor of these threads is all the interesting talk about science and philosophy it has spawned, all of which disprove Lessans.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, how could the entertainment value diminish when I never played the "I don't know but I'm sure magic did it!" card? I was hoping that people were not viewing this thread for entertainment value only (although it sure is fascinating to see how people dodge the issue and then tell me I'm nuts), but I guess I was wrong.

Yes, entertainment value only. The Internet Freak Show.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not talking about reflection. No reflection in Lessans example

How can we photograph the sun at noon if it was just turned on at noon and therefore there are no photons on Earth?

Yes you are LadyShea. You don't see how the connection between "no reflection" and the eyes being efferent, come together to allow us to see the Sun as it explodes in real time. So instead of trying to understand you tell me that this violates the laws of physics. That's too easy of a cop-out.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

[
Yes, entertainment value only. The Internet Freak Show.

Speaking of freak shows, I noticed that the BAUT forum must have a really narrow definition of what is allowed on a thread. The moderators are getting really pissy about comments in some of the posts. That could be why I haven't spent much time there, They moderate like they have a stick up their ass.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lots of actual science sure seems like fiction, but it's not. They have actual cyborg rats, rat neural cells in glass dishes that run little robots. Take a look at Quantum physics. Relativity is certainly not science fiction.

I never said or implied that what we perceive is often related to our experiences. But the external world is not relative. We see the external world because it is there to be seen. If you're looking at the moon from across the world, and I see it also, we're looking at the same moon. The clock time might be different depending on our locality, but that doesn't change that we are seeing in real time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your not understanding it doesn't make it bullshit.

Do I hear an echo???

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Speaking of freak shows, I noticed that the BAUT forum must have a really narrow definition of what is allowed on a thread. The moderators are getting really pissy about comments in some of the posts. That could be why I haven't spent much time there, They moderate like they have a stick up their ass.

That's why as much as I hate the tomato throwing in here, to be moderated and told what one can and cannot say, and especially ending a thread in midstream, is worse. So even though being here is not great, it's the lesser of two evils.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do I hear an echo???

LadyShea, you may be on the verge of a breakthrough. Perhaps peacegirl might realize that she is not the only one who can hold a strongly held opinion. Maybe she might even start listening to another opinion.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why as much as I hate the tomato throwing in here, to be moderated and told what one can and cannot say, and especially ending a thread in midstream, is worse. So even though being here is not great, it's the lesser of two evils.

I'm sure you hate it when threads are not allowed to go until you die.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Speaking of freak shows, I noticed that the BAUT forum must have a really narrow definition of what is allowed on a thread. The moderators are getting really pissy about comments in some of the posts. That could be why I haven't spent much time there, They moderate like they have a stick up their ass.

Yes, it is very strong moderation there. And it's why peacegirl wouldn't last more than a day there. As soon as she evaded a single question or made another bullshit post, the moderator would step in and tell her to change her behavior. The next time she posted there in the same way she does here, she would be summarily banned.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So instead of trying to understand you tell me that this violates the laws of physics. That's too easy of a cop-out.

Every bullshit claim you have ever made violates all the laws of physics and is in direct conflict with observed reality.

Why does NASA correct for delayed-time seeing via the speed of light to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial bodies, peacegirl? You are cornered like a rat by that single question and run away and hide like a dishonest coward when it is asked of you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, it's the lesser of two evils.

Many years I read a book about the 'Lesser of two Weevils', it was a childrens book but pretty funny, with a lot of humor that was obviously directed at the adults reading the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And that is exactly what science has done, scientists have made observations on Earth for a long time and now with the space age they have verified those observations. Physics and light behave the same in space as they do on Earth, so any observation we make in space is just as valid as the observations we make on Earth. Physics and optics are the same throughout the universe, the same rules and theories apply everywhere even if we do not understand all the rules the ones that have been discovered work without fail.

No thedoc, scientists did not make a correct observation. They assumed the eyes worked like the other senses. Based on that premise, everything seemed to fit, but it's completely false that objects reflect images (or information) that (N) travel through space and time and strike the retina.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Uh-oh, she's been given her meds and let out of the strait jacket! Now she's in her Computer Room Therapy Session, and all reinvigorated, she is spamming the boards with Lessansmania!

The more sense Lessans makes, the more nonsense David makes.

[davidm]

[quote=peacegirl;1031811]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No thedoc, scientists did not make a correct observation. They assumed the eyes worked like the other senses.

No, you stupid little liar, as has been repeatedly explained to you, just the opposite is the case. At one time they assumed efferent vision (which even if true, does not imply real-time seeing). They then STUDIED the eye, and found that it was afferent.

Back on the meds and back into the strait jacket for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm sure you hate it when threads are not allowed to go until you die.

I don't like it when a moderator artificially ends a conversation before it has run its course. That is interference. Just like capitalism, the market needs to correct itself, not have government interfere and create an artificial bail out. It causes more damage.