A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

Where is this in the public records? You should be able to come up with something. I think you're bullshitting, as usual.

[davidm]

Oh, look, you've attributed my quote to yourself! I guess that means you agree with me that you are nuts.

And WTF are you babbling about, "public records"? Read the Lone Ranger's essay, you lying sack of shit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, look, you've attributed my quote to yourself! I guess that means you agree with me that you are nuts.

And WTF are you babbling about, "public records"? Read the Lone Ranger's essay, you lying sack of shit.

As usual the tension and vitriol rise in proportion to the threat. Why do you feel so threatened David? Other than TLR's essay (which does not answer my question), where in any public record does it show that people believed in efferent vision? Obviously, there's no such record.

[Vivisectus]

You never said how may books you sold, or if you got any feedback.

[Vivisectus]

Also, you ever explained why direct sight does not contradict causality. What causes the reaction at the eyes / film?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

But if you are in favor of no regulation then why have you complained about the lack or moderation on this board.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I am not asking about seeing the sun. I am asking about photographing the sun, which requires a photon at the newly ignited sun at noon being in physical contact with camera film on Earth at noon where no photons are.

Put a marble (representing a photon) on a table (the sun) then walk 6 feet away and put an envelope (camera film) on another table (the Earth). Your job is to explain how that marble can get into that envelope (absorption) without either the marble or envelope moving.

The photon and camera film physically exist, just like the marble and the envelope, and they are in different physical locations in Lessans example of the Sun being turned on at noon so the Earth is dark until the photons arrive on Earth until 12:08. No amount of lenses or brains or eye windows can get that marble into the envelope without movement (traveling). Your only option is for the physical properties of the two physically existing things to change somehow, or for one or both of them to teleport, or one of them to physically manifest in another location as a duplicate.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Every observation and test corroborates afferent vision and confirms that we see via light traveling to the eye, being converted into nerve impulses to the brain where they are intrepreted as an image. This is how optics, the eyes, and the brains work, as has been demonstrated over and over again by many researchers trying to disprove afferent vision. Scientists make observations and base their conclusions on what they find, not what the expect, or want to find. You are simply demonstrating that like your father you have no understanding of science or scientists. Lessans pompous self aggrandizing just confirmed that he had no concept of how science worked. I can't help it that you have addopted completely false ideas and beliefs with no basis in reality, the proof is right in front of you, but you are so blinded by your fathers fiction that you fail to see. Enjoy your fantasy if you like, for me I can see the truth, I can see for myself how the world really works. Its too late to correct your fathers mistaken ideas, but I have a hard time believing that he actually believed what he wrote, rather than making a grand joke about the world.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is this in the public records? You should be able to come up with something. I think you're bullshitting, as usual.

Are you so out of touch that you don't realize that medical records are private and confidential, and cannot be accessed without your permission. Are you giving us permission to view your mental health records, why don't you post them as proof.

[LadyShea]

This guy has a nice summary of the history of vision science

History of Vision Science - a knol by Awais Zia

[davidm]

No one will ever get peacegirl to budge off her delusions because she likes them. It makes her feel important. The idea that her father was a great man, and she is now his prophet and curator of his legacy, is enormously thrilling to her and lifts her out of her mundane reality. That's really about it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

No one will ever get peacegirl to budge off her delusions because she likes them. It makes her feel important. The idea that her father was a great man, and she is now his prophet and curator of his legacy, is enormously thrilling to her and lifts her out of her mundane reality. That's really about it.

Not really. She has exhibited some major cognitive dysfunction and still does so.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Not really. She has exhibited some major cognitive dysfunction and still does so.

Not any more than the run-of-the-mill fundamentalist Christian though.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not any more than the run-of-the-mill fundamentalist Christian though.

I'm pretty sure that peacegirl is not the only mentally ill person in the world. And although Christians might dispute this, they are not immune from mental illness.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm pretty sure that peacegirl is not the only mentally ill person in the world. And although Christians might dispute this, they are not immune from mental illness.

So you consider every young-earth creationist to be mentally ill? Or every anti-evolutionist?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So you consider every young-earth creationist to be mentally ill? Or every anti-evolutionist?

no I don't. But some are.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

no I don't. But some are.

How do you draw the line though? They are all impervious to logic, none of them care much for evidence that challenges their worldview, they all use these odd phrases as thought-stoppers... at what point does a person cross the line from fundy to mentally ill person?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How do you draw the line though? They are all impervious to logic, none of them care much for evidence that challenges their worldview, they all use these odd phrases as thought-stoppers... at what point does a person cross the line from fundy to mentally ill person?

I draw the line at where the person is cognitively dysfunctional when discussing their very own beliefs. Not so much that they believe something crazy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You never said how may books you sold, or if you got any feedback.

Maybe you forgot...

I have not marketed or distributed this book.
Therefore, no one knows about this book.
Therefore I have sold no books.
Therefore, I have gotten no feedback.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How do you draw the line though? They are all impervious to logic, none of them care much for evidence that challenges their worldview, they all use these odd phrases as thought-stoppers... at what point does a person cross the line from fundy to mentally ill person?

You seem to be painting all of them with the same broad brush. Do you think that all Christians are fundamentalists, young Earthers, anti-evolutionist. If so you are just as bigoted and delusional as Peacegirl, you cannot just lump all individuals who claim a certain belief together, there is a lot of variety in the nature of peoples beliefs. The corporate church, in spite of claims otherwise, does not dictate what every Christian believes.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe you forgot...

I have not marketed or distributed this book.
Therefore, no one knows about this book.
Therefore I have sold no books.
Therefore, I have gotten no feedback.

Except for the excelent review on the Amazon site.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Uh, no

I was trying to explain that all we have is the present. The movement of time is actually done in the present. A second ago, a minute ago, an hour ago, a day ago, a month ago, or a year ago is a relation that we hold in our minds as a memory. We cannot live in the past or future. I think I have to repeat this post again. Through his insights, he proves that there is nothing to fear in death because we're born again and again, but there is no relation to the YOU that exists now and the YOU that will come into existence after you're gone. That's all I'm going to explain.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: Our Posterity pp. 488-489

To solve this apparently unsolvable problem, it is first
necessary to establish certain undeniable facts. Therefore, let me
begin by asking you if there is such a reality as the past? Does this
word symbolize something that is a part of the real world?
“Of course…yesterday is the past, today is the present, and
tomorrow is the future. And this is a mathematical relation.”
It is true that yesterday was Thursday, and the day before was
Wednesday, and there isn’t any person alive who will disagree. But
this does not prove whether the word past is an accurate symbol. Can
you take it, like you can the words apple and pear, and hang it up on
something so I can look through it at the real McCoy? When does
the present become the past? I actually want you to demonstrate how
the present slips into the past. That cannot be done, by God Himself.


The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such
thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation
between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I
leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something
that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two
points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present. I
know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction
of a second ago, and that I am still talking.

The word 'past' is
obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because
it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to
the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do
something, and because you are also conscious of space you perceive
that as you traverse a point from here to there, what is left behind as
you travel is called the past and your destination is the future. Here
lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it
humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future
when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to
describe something that has no existence in the real world. Socrates
didn’t live in the past — he lived in the present, although our
recollection of him (which is in the present) allows us to think back to
this time period.

The reason we say that Socrates lived in the past is
because this particular individual is no longer here. But is it possible
for you to say that God or the sun existed in the past? Does anyone
ever sleep in the past; does the sun ever shine in the past; is it possible
for you to do anything in the past? If you were sitting up on a high
cloud these last ten thousand years, never asleep, as is the sun, you
would have watched Socrates in the present, just as you are watching
me write this book in the present. In order for me to prove what
seems impossible, it is absolutely necessary that I de-confuse the mind
of man so we can communicate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

It's not two different locations LadyShea. I'm sorry you are not grasping why efferent sight allows for real time vision. Sometimes, that's just how the ball bounces.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Except for the excelent review on the Amazon site.

And then there is this self review

Janis Rafael | LinkedIn

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

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?

A lens is part of a camera and a part of the eye, so what's your beef?