A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

That's exactly why if I depended on these moderated forums I would never be able to explain the misconceptions regarding how we see because the moderators would not give me a chance.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

No beef. Just further confirmation of your cognitive dysfunction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

Not one word has come close to disproving Lessans. I don't know what you're talking about, seriously. And I hope it's more than all the other interesting talk that keep people here, although I agree there is a lot of learning going on other than what I'm positing.

[Vivisectus]

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.

No, sorry, I missed that. None? But then where did the review on Amazon come from? You must have at least sold ONE?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's exactly why if I depended on these moderated forums I would never be able to explain the misconceptions regarding how we see because the moderators would not give me a chance.

Soooooooo, you've been posting for 9/10 months on this unmoderated forum trying to explain "the misconceptions regarding how we see". Is this a big improvement for you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

I already answered this question like 3 times.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

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.

But how do you decide it is cognitive disfunction and not bog-standard wilful ignorance?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But how do you decide it is cognitive disfunction and not bog-standard wilful ignorance?

It's not easy and it takes lots of data. But you may not think peacegirl has provided enough data. So please take the time to post with her trying to fathom the breaks in her cognition rather than trying to make sense of what she is saying. Once you do that it doesn't take long. Then the question becomes if you can find the source of the seed misconceptions that is then amplified by her dysfunction. She claims to be explaining Lessans book but she doesn't seem to understand much of it. Not that this would be easy for a sane person.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

Vivisectus, I have explained this more than 50 times. When the brain is looking out through the eyes, we see the object because of it's ability to absorb certain wavelengths. Nothing from the object travels, only white light bounces off of objects. But when we look directly at the object, we see it in real time due to the non-absorbed light that is present. It doesn't (P) reflect off of the object which implies travel time. I think this has gotten people really confused. The lens of a camera works the same way except that it focuses the light which is just a mirror image of the object. ABSOLUTELY NO INFORMATION FROM THE OBJECT IS TRAVELING. SO HOW DOES IT CONTRADICT CAUSALITY?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, sorry, I missed that. None? But then where did the review on Amazon come from? You must have at least sold ONE?

Better hurry, Amazon has one book left Amazon.com: Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times (9781553953302): Seymour Lessans: Books

This seller apparently thinks that it's become a collectable:

$115.15
+ $3.99shipping
New
Seller: any_book
Seller Rating:95% positive over the past 12 months. (599,556 total ratings)
In Stock. Ships from FL, United States. Expedited shipping available.
International & domestic shipping rates and return policy.
Brand New! Huge seller with millions of transactions! Satisfaction Guaranteed!


or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.

[LadyShea]

She had the book posted online, accessible for free, for years. It was only recently taken down.

Several people here have it still. My copy got lost when my harddrive blowed up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

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

Moderation is only called for in extreme cases. Imagine the President of the United States giving his State of the Union address and he can't even get through his speech because people are calling him expletives and booing him. That's how I feel. I can't get past all of the naysayers and tomato throwers. It's a terrible distraction and has nothing to do with the discussion.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

Religion, specifically the belief in God is a form of cognitive error. Actual evidence for the supernatural fades under the light of scrutiny, and so religion is belief in things for which there is no evidence for.

While it's a form of cognitive error, it's a perfectly normal and healthy function of our own minds, which likes to have reasons for things. We're a story telling species. It's not a sign of mental illness to be religious.

However, the real dysfunction comes when belief contradicts observed reality. Some people just figure out how to work with the new facts, and some people double down and insist there is something wrong with the observations. (This is the "escalation of commitment" that ThreeLawsSafe mentioned.) A good example are the YE creationists.

Even then most of these people are functional otherwise. They have extreme cognitive bias, but the dysfunction is focused around the things they believe. They can otherwise be productive workers, loving parents, good friends, etc.

Then there's a few whose cognitive dysfunction harms themselves or others. This is where cognitive dysfunction goes into mental illness. It's generally not a matter of content, it's a matter of severity.

One thing I'd like to point out, we know peacegirl is highly dysfunctional when it comes to any subject surrounding Lessans' books. We don't really know how dysfunctional she is in other aspects of her life (although we may have had some clues....), or how badly her level of dysfunction affects her quality of life, so it's not really fair to label her as mentally ill.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, I have explained this more than 50 times. When the brain is looking out through the eyes, we see the object because of it's ability to absorb certain wavelengths. Nothing from the object travels, only white light bounces off of objects. But when we look directly at the object, we see it in real time due to the non-absorbed light that is present. It doesn't (P) reflect off of the object which implies travel time. I think this has gotten people really confused. The lens of a camera works the same way except that it focuses the light which is just a mirror image of the object. ABSOLUTELY NO INFORMATION FROM THE OBJECT IS TRAVELING. SO HOW DOES IT CONTRADICT CAUSALITY?

If nothing travels, then it is a contradiction of causality. It is as simple as that. Either something travels from the object to the retina / Film / Brain, or causality is contradicted.

That is what causality means.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Religion, specifically the belief in God is a form of cognitive error. Actual evidence for the supernatural fades under the light of scrutiny, and so religion is belief in things for which there is no evidence for.

While it's a form of cognitive error, it's a perfectly normal and healthy function of our own minds, which likes to have reasons for things. We're a story telling species. It's not a sign of mental illness to be religious.

However, the real dysfunction comes when belief contradicts observed reality. Some people just figure out how to work with the new facts, and some people double down and insist there is something wrong with the observations. (This is the "escalation of commitment" that ThreeLawsSafe mentioned.) A good example are the YE creationists.

Even then most of these people are functional otherwise. They have extreme cognitive bias, but the dysfunction is focused around the things they believe. They can otherwise be productive workers, loving parents, good friends, etc.

Then there's a few whose cognitive dysfunction harms themselves or others. This is where cognitive dysfunction goes into mental illness. It's generally not a matter of content, it's a matter of severity.

One thing I'd like to point out, we know peacegirl is highly dysfunctional when it comes to any subject surrounding Lessans' books. We don't really know how dysfunctional she is in other aspects of her life (although we may have had some clues....), or how badly her level of dysfunction affects her quality of life, so it's not really fair to label her as mentally ill.

A sober post, and right on target IMHO.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

It's due to the non-absorbed light that the lens is focusing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

You can't compare a marble with light LadyShea. Marbles have to travel to get from one place to another, so this is a bad analogy. The non-absorbed light is present as long as the object is present. As I have said many times, it really doesn't matter how far away something is as long as it's large enough and bright enough to be seen. If that object is within our field of view, that light will be present at the film if the lens is focusing that light. You must bear in mind at all times that when we look at an object, that object reveals itself through it's absorption properties. But that non-absorbed light is not being reflected as in (N) light. This is where everyone is extremely confused.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Here is how:

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.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's due to the non-absorbed light that the lens is focusing.

What non absorbed light is there in this scenario? There are no photons on Earth

I am asking about photographing at noon the sun that was just ignited at noon...you remember, Lessans example, that I have no strayed from in weeks?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't compare a marble with light LadyShea. Marbles have to travel to get from one place to another, so this is a bad analogy.

I can compare a marble with a photon in this example. Absolutely. Photons are physically existing things that cannot be located at two places at once. In the scenario I took from Lessans, the photon is at the Sun, at noon, and will not reach Earth until 12:08. You said, however, we could take a photograph using a film camera at noon. The camera film must physically absorb a photon. There are no photons on Earth

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

And then there is this self review

Janis Rafael | LinkedIn

Curioser and curioser, in that review and listing, Janis Rafael is listed as the author, What happened to dear daddy Lessans, is the truth now coming out?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If nothing travels, then it is a contradiction of causality. It is as simple as that. Either something travels from the object to the retina / Film / Brain, or causality is contradicted.

That is what causality means.

No, it would only be a contradiction of causality if somehow the photons had to teleport themselves to get from A to B, but that's not what I'm saying at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Curioser and curioser, in that review and listing, Janis Rafael is listed as the author, What happened to dear daddy Lessans, is the truth now coming out?

I haven't been to Linked In for the longest time. Look David, the book says it's by Seymour Lessans. I'm not hiding anything.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered this question like 3 times.

You've never answered the question except in the fog of your deluded mind.

Your answer to the question was efferent seeing. Only you would think this was an answer. If you seriously believe that this is an answer, you are mentally dysfunctional; otherwise you are just dishonest. But your dishonesty tricks no one.

We are asking you: if Lessans is right and the apparent location of Mars is also its actual location (real-time seeing), then why is it that NASA, in order to send a spacecraft to Mars, caclulates that the actual location of Mars is DIFFERENT FROM its apparent location, by a factior related to light speed? In other words, the actual calculations that NASA uses, proves that real-time seeing is false. When I ask you to account for this refutation of real-time seeing, you reply, "what accounts for this refutation of real-time seeing is real-time seeing!"



Do you really think such drivel tricks anyone? You have not tricked anyone in ten years of doing this shit, have you?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She had the book posted online, accessible for free, for years. It was only recently taken down.

Several people here have it still. My copy got lost when my harddrive blowed up.

An odd thing about that book. The ISBN numbers shown on Amazon's page or the author Seymour Lessans do not show up in the Library of Congress online database. I wonder if the publisher pulled a fast one. That book may not be copyrighted.

[LadyShea]

Why do you keep ignoring the single example I have asked you to use in favor of all this gobbledegook?

The non-absorbed light is present as long as the object is present. As I have said many times, it really doesn't matter how far away something is as long as it's large enough and bright enough to be seen. If that object is within our field of view, that light will be present at the film if the lens is focusing that light. You must bear in mind at all times that when we look at an object, that object reveals itself through it's absorption properties. But that non-absorbed light is not being reflected as in (N) light. This is where everyone is extremely confused.

1. The Sun ignited at noon
2. Camera film on Earth at noon
3. No photons of light on Earth until 12:08 ACCORDING TO LESSANS HIMSELF
4. No light on Earth means no photons for the camera film to physically touch which is required for absorption and photocehmical reaction.

How do the photons and the camera film come to the same physical location at noon?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What non absorbed light is there in this scenario? There are no photons on Earth

I am asking about photographing at noon the sun that was just ignited at noon...you remember, Lessans example, that I have no strayed from in weeks?

I can compare a marble with a photon in this example. Absolutely. Photons are physically existing things that cannot be located at two places at once. In the scenario I took from Lessans, the photon is at the Sun, at noon, and will not reach Earth until 12:08. You said, however, we could take a photograph using a film camera at noon. The camera film must physically absorb a photon. There are no photons on Earth

You're right, there are no photons on Earth, which is why if the Sun was just turned on you would not be able to take a photograph of anyone for 8 minutes, but due to the fact that the Sun is large enough and bright enough, the lens of the camera would be able to focus that light because of the object's (the Sun in this instance) presence. That's why Lessans said that you can't get a photograph from just light. You need the object to be in the camera's field of view. This has nothing to do with duplication. It has only to do with light interacting with the film. Optics supports this since the only way a photograph can be taken is if the light can be resolved by the lens which requires the object to be present. There is never a time that an object is out of the field of view, and a photograph would show up JUST FROM THE LIGHT. How many times do I have to say this for people to finally get it?