A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do know how this is meant to work, but you are getting very mixed up by your idea of how light is reflected. No (P) light is actually reflected; it is there when we look at the object. The only light that is reflected is (N) light and that is the light that is everywhere, bounces off of everything, allows us to have all of our technologies, and travels at the finite speed of light.

No, you don't have the faintest idea of how it is meant to work. If you did, you'd be both able and willing to answer questions about it. But you don't, so you just dishonestly avoid, ignore, and weasel.

[Vivisectus]

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.

I see the complete unwillingness or inability to admit to even the smallest mistake in her fathers work, or in his personality, even when it is glaringly obvious.

I also see the lengths to which she will go - breaking down into completely incoherent babble interspersed with words or phrases that she feels sound IMPORTANT or SCIENTIFIC in a desperate bid to allow herself to cling on to the idea that it makes sense, even if she does not understand it herself.

But I am not so sure it is caused by an inability to understand, or by an unwillingness to. The fundies are perfectly capable for the most part, but they do not choose to understand. They reject the evidence of their eyes and brains easily: they feel it is of lesser worth than their tradition. They are taught from a young age to dismiss anything that casts doubt on their faith.

I know her irrational belief in her fathers saint- and prophethood makes her say irrational thins, but I am not sure if she is incapable of understanding.

Maybe it is a quibble, I don't know.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

A sober post, and right on target IMHO.

Thanks, although I did take exception to some things you wrote before. I actually am concerned that it's not healthy for peacegirl to be posting here, and I think there's at least clues that she might be dysfunctional to the point where she's harming herself.

I mentioned this way before you started reading this thread, but her actions often remind me of my (now deceased) delusional Grandmother. She was always convinced my Grandfather was just in the other room, or outside if it was a nice day. If for some reason, I had to tell her that he died several years ago, she'd become really confused.

While I harbor hope that peacegirl isn't that bad, I kinda feel like arguing with her is like whipping my Grandmother with the death certificate.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

A sober post, and right on target IMHO.

I agree.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Thanks, although I did take exception to some things you wrote before. I actually am concerned that it's not healthy for peacegirl to be posting here, and I think there's at least clues that she might be dysfunctional to the point where she's harming herself.

I mentioned this way before you started reading this thread, but her actions often remind me of my (now deceased) delusional Grandmother. She was always convinced my Grandfather was just in the other room, or outside if it was a nice day. If for some reason, I had to tell her that he died several years ago, she'd become really confused.

While I harbor hope that peacegirl isn't that bad, I kinda feel like arguing with her is like whipping my Grandmother with the death certificate.

I'm sorry about your grandmother.

With what did you take exception?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

That entry about the book is dated 1/1/2010. Not that long ago. Almost as long as you've been posting on FF.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Your delusions lead you to draw many false conclusions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

You're not. Your actions show that you have no interest in developing a consistent and coherent model of vision, and that you have no interest in seeing if Lessans anywhere supports what I have described as his presuppositions about conscience.

You've consistently weaselled and avoided doing either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

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.

The book I compiled was copyrighted in Canada because the publisher was based in Canada until they sold it to AuthorHouse books. Lessans' books never had an ISBN number but all of them are in the Library of Congress.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your delusions lead you to draw many false conclusions.

No, I'm just trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, which they certainly haven't given Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're not. Your actions show that you have no interest in developing a consistent and coherent model of vision, and that you have no interest in seeing if Lessans anywhere supports what I have described as his presuppositions about conscience.

You've consistently weaselled and avoided doing either.

Look Spacemonkey, if I am going to talk about his most important discovery, I am going to cut and paste, whether you like it or not. Then I will discuss the presuppositions that this chapter does support.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Photographing with film is photographing with film, it requires the physical presence of a photon on the surface of the camera film. Period. It is the same across all examples, all the time. You don't get to make exceptions in physics.

If there is no photon on Earth, there is no photon on the surface of the camera film being absorbed. The marble is not in the envelope. Lenses are not teleportation devices. Focusing is not a magic spell that eliminates physical spaces

Marble and envelope are a perfect analogy of the physical process of film photography required by the laws of physics. Get the marble into the envelope peacegirl.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I'm sorry about your grandmother.

With what did you take exception?

I think you were taking an even more conservative approach when discussing peacegirl's mental state, and that you were haranguing others about discussing her mental state. It's been pretty clear that unless she's the most consistent and successful troll in recent history, she really not very functional at all on any subject that's related to the "knowledge" Lessans gave her.

Seriously, I'll bet I could search through the book (I have the PDF) and find a subject we haven't yet discussed, and tell you peacegirl's opinion.

[Vivisectus]

Are you sure? Some publishers are unscrupulous SOB's.

[LadyShea]

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.

The photocehmecial reaction involved in film photography requires the film be in physical contact with photons.

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? :

It's disproven nonsense, why would anyone ever get it? The Hubble Deep Field images absolutely prove your statement false.

[Spacemonkey]

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?

I answered this for you earlier. The review was from Kevin Greene, a poster from IIDB, who read the online version.

She hasn't sold any copies. Instead of actually marketing and distributing this book which will allegedly end all evil and bring world peace, she's spent the last decade goofing off on internet forums. Lessans would be so proud.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I see the complete unwillingness or inability to admit to even the smallest mistake in her fathers work, or in his personality, even when it is glaringly obvious.

I also see the lengths to which she will go - breaking down into completely incoherent babble interspersed with words or phrases that she feels sound IMPORTANT or SCIENTIFIC in a desperate bid to allow herself to cling on to the idea that it makes sense, even if she does not understand it herself.

But I am not so sure it is caused by an inability to understand, or by an unwillingness to. The fundies are perfectly capable for the most part, but they do not choose to understand. They reject the evidence of their eyes and brains easily: they feel it is of lesser worth than their tradition. They are taught from a young age to dismiss anything that casts doubt on their faith.

I know her irrational belief in her fathers saint- and prophethood makes her say irrational thins, but I am not sure if she is incapable of understanding.

Maybe it is a quibble, I don't know.

Certainly there are many fundies that have the ability to understand and reason but for whatever reason choose not to use that ability. From what I've seen of peacegirl it's not that she is unwilling to understand, it's she is unable to understand. It all boils down to her fierce attachment to a few phrases in Lessans book and the inability see how out of whack her interpretation of those phrases are with what she herself knows about the world. This is why no matter how many times people here try to point out to her the realities of the world it does no good. She already knows about these conflicts but her ability to reason about them is not there.

The other thing that fundies have over peacegirl is that they are positing the actions of an all powerful agent. So they can keep their beliefs and still be reasonable since such an agent can do anything.

Peacegirl is just posting the discoveries of her dad. Errors in reasoning are much more apparent since she only claims perfection on his part, not omnipotence, by endowing Lessans with perfect knowledge she is doing something rather stupid. It's not as if in the information age it is all that difficult to check someone's "knowledge". And when they conflict she has nowhere to go but put herself in the position of claiming the entire world is wrong. She must do this even with knowledge she personally has that conflicts with the claims of Lessans. To keep this up for decades goes beyond an unwillingness to reason. To me it is a clear indicator of dysfunction.

[Spacemonkey]

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.

You are still contradicting yourself. If certain wavelengths are absorbed, then what bounces off of objects cannot be full spectrum white light. Some of that spectrum has been absorbed and is no longer there in what bounces off. And (P)reflection has never involved travel time. You are the only one confused about (P)reflection, which explains why you keep refusing to answer questions about it (or contradicting yourself whenever you try).

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The book I compiled was copyrighted in Canada because the publisher was based in Canada until they sold it to AuthorHouse books. Lessans' books never had an ISBN number but all of them are in the Library of Congress.

The author Lessans nor the title of the book show up in the US copyright or the Canadian copyright online database.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I answered this for you earlier. The review was from Kevin Greene, a poster from IIDB, who read the online version.

She hasn't sold any copies. Instead of actually marketing and distributing this book which will allegedly end all evil and bring world peace, she's spent the last decade goofing off on internet forums. Lessans would be so proud.

I cannot believe I missed that - apologies!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

The president is the head of the government. You are just some schmo with a book. If you want a forum with moderation that allows you to present Lessans as you deem fit then start your own forum. This well is poisoned for you. Not that you ever had a chance on a forum with little to no moderation.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=naturalist.atheist;1031944]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I see the complete unwillingness or inability to admit to even the smallest mistake in her fathers work, or in his personality, even when it is glaringly obvious.

I also see the lengths to which she will go - breaking down into completely incoherent babble interspersed with words or phrases that she feels sound IMPORTANT or SCIENTIFIC in a desperate bid to allow herself to cling on to the idea that it makes sense, even if she does not understand it herself.

But I am not so sure it is caused by an inability to understand, or by an unwillingness to. The fundies are perfectly capable for the most part, but they do not choose to understand. They reject the evidence of their eyes and brains easily: they feel it is of lesser worth than their tradition. They are taught from a young age to dismiss anything that casts doubt on their faith.

I know her irrational belief in her fathers saint- and prophethood makes her say irrational thins, but I am not sure if she is incapable of understanding.

Maybe it is a quibble, I don't know.

Certainly there are many fundies that have the ability to understand and reason but for whatever reason choose not to use that ability. From what I've seen of peacegirl it's not that she is unwilling to understand, it's she is unable to understand. It all boils down to her fierce attachment to a few phrases in Lessans book and the inability see how out of whack her interpretation of those phrases are with what she herself knows about the world. This is why no matter how many times people here try to point out to her the realities of the world it does no good. She already knows about these conflicts but her ability to reason about them is not there.

I have seen that in perfectly capable people too, though, when they simply consider their tradition of bible-interpretation to be more important that anything "of the world". The very fact that something is merely rational or logical makes it second-rate to something they consider represents a higher order of reality.

Hell, the "Creation Museum" that shows dinosaurs and cavemen running around together is run by a university-trained biologist!

The other thing that fundies have over peacegirl is that they are positing the actions of an all powerful agent. So they can keep their beliefs and still be reasonable since such an agent can do anything.

Read the book. Lessans considers himself the discoverer of the most powerful secrets that ever existed.

Peacegirl is just posting the discoveries of her dad. Errors in reasoning are much more apparent since she only claims perfection on his part, not omnipotence, by endowing Lessans with perfect knowledge she is doing something rather stupid. It's not as if in the information age it is all that difficult to check someone's "knowledge". And when they conflict she has nowhere to go but put herself in the position of claiming the entire world is wrong. She must do this even with knowledge she personally has that conflicts with the claims of Lessans. To keep this up for decades goes beyond an unwillingness to reason. To me it is a clear indicator of dysfunction.

I can see your point, but I am still not sure. I guess the question becomes: does she WANT to believe, or is she somehow compelled to? It must be pleasant to think that you are part of something that is of world-wide and time-spanning importance, especially if life did not turn out the way you had hoped.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm just trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, which they certainly haven't given Lessans.

Nonsense. You're simply feeding your delusion. No-one here is sticking around because they are too smart too give up on the possibility that Lessans might have been right. Everyone but you knows he was wrong. Your pretending otherwise helps only you, and is no favor to us.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look Spacemonkey, if I am going to talk about his most important discovery, I am going to cut and paste, whether you like it or not. Then I will discuss the presuppositions that this chapter does support.

Whether you copypaste or not is irrelevant. The point is that you will never even try to show me specifically where in his book he allegedly supports what I listed as his presuppositions about conscience.

You have no interest in doing that because you know you can't. Just like you have no interest in developing a consistent and coherent model of afferent vision. You prefer to keep it as an incoherent, confused, constantly changing and contradictory mess, so that you can continue pretending that there might yet be some way of developing it into something consistent and plausible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Most of us can read and understand what you are saying, but just because you say is does not make it anything other than nonsense. As far as optics and vision, nothing you have said is true, nor does it have any foundation in reality, it is only a product of Lesans and your imagination and is pure fantasy.

[Spacemonkey]

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here][/quote]



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]

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

[LadyShea]

There are no public records of copyright???!!!???

[naturalist.atheist]

peacegirl has been holding out on us.

The Decline and Fall of All Evil