A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you were clear on how your model works, then you wouldn't have any trouble answering the following simple questions about it. But you can't answer them (without contradicting yourself) because you really don't have the faintest idea of how your model is meant to work. (My questions have nothing to do with brain mechanisms.)



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]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Spacemonkey, I'm not answering these questions over and over. I told you that light is always in motion, but the only way we see an object is when the lens is focused on the light that is present due to the absorbed wavelengths. No (P) light is actually being reflected. It's there to be seen when we're looking at the object in real time. There is no duplication, nor is there teleporting of photons, which you actually believe.

[thedoc]

Oop's

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Ha ha. Welcome to the world of Peacegirl, TLS. Where "troll" constitutes a psychiatric diagnosis.

Yes, he's diagnosing me as having a problem. He was diagnosing my motive, which is entirely fabricated.

Definition of 'diagnosis' Random House Webster's College Dictionary

1. (n.) diagnosis
the process of determining by medical examination the nature and circumstances of a diseased condition.

2. diagnosis
the decision reached from such an examination.

** 3. diagnosis
an analysis of the cause or nature of a situation.

4. diagnosis
an answer or solution to a problematic situation.

5. diagnosis
Biol. a precise description of a taxon.

Etymology: (1675–85; < NL < Gk diágnōsis=dia(gi)gnṒ(skein) to discern, determine (dia-dia - +gignṒskein to know ) +-sis-sis)

Definition of 'diagnosis' Princeton's WordNet

** 1. (noun) diagnosis, diagnosing
identifying the nature or cause of some phenomenon


Definition of 'diagnosis' Kernerman English Learner’s Dictionary

1. (noun) diagnosis
the act of diagnosing
the diagnosis of diabetes; self-diagnosis


Definition of 'diagnosis' Webster Dictionary

1. (noun) diagnosis
the art or act of recognizing the presence of disease from its signs or symptoms, and deciding as to its character; also, the decision arrived at

2. (noun) diagnosis
scientific determination of any kind; the concise description of characterization of a species

3. (noun) diagnosis
critical perception or scrutiny; judgment based on such scrutiny; esp., perception of, or judgment concerning, motives and character


Definition of 'diagnosis' U.S. National Library of Medicine

1. diagnosis
The determination of the nature of a disease or condition, or the distinguishing of one disease or condition from another. Assessment may be made through physical examination, laboratory tests, or the likes. Computerized programs may be used to enhance the decision-making process.

What does diagnosis mean?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where explaining that the lens is necessary for there to be a photograph, which everyone seems to be forgetting.

Did you already forget the lengthy discussion about holograms and photosensitive materials creating images with no lenses?

[LadyShea]

What happens to an individual photon, with a green wavelength, after it comes in contact with a plant leaf high up in the rainforest canopy if there are no lenses or brains around to see it?

Just the leaf, and the photon. No eyes, brains, cameras.

The photon is emitted from the sun, travels along for 8.5 minutes with the other photons with different wavelengths, strikes the plant leaf, then the photon with a green wavelength......?

Fill in the ........blank

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you already forget the lengthy discussion about holograms and photosensitive materials creating images with no lenses?

And did you not see my response? Where in the world could we see a hologram if we didn't have a lens? Yes, it's true, that light produces certain effects, but in order to see those effects, we have to use the eye or film, which involves a LENS.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What happens to an individual photon, with a green wavelength, after it comes in contact with a plant leaf high up in the rainforest canopy if there are no lenses or brains around to see it?

Just the leaf, and the photon. No eyes, brains, cameras.

The photon is emitted from the sun, travels along for 8.5 minutes with the other photons with different wavelengths, strikes the plant leaf, then the photon with a green wavelength......?

Fill in the ........blank

You keep asking this question and I keep answering that this has no relationship to whether or not we're viewing the object (in this case the plant). What is most important is that when the lens is focused on the light which is the opposite side of the imaginary coin, we see or we record on film the actual object, not the past object. So what I'm saying is that this white light is always being reflected, but this has nothing to do with the object that's in question. That can only be seen when we're looking at it which has nothing to do with reflected light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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

Ladyshea, don't you see what you're doing??? You're, once again, placing the cart before the horse. You don't even get what I'm saying, do you?

[peacegirl]

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.

STOP RIGHT THERE! In Spacemonkey's own words you are presupposing that I'm mentally ill and from this premise you are basing your conclusions. You haven't challenged your premise; you're accepting it at face value and from there you are concluding something is wrong with me, when there is nothing wrong with me AT ALL.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

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

Right, but it was a one time post. I am hiding that I am not the author. I would never do that.

[peacegirl]

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.

Before looking like a fool Spacemonkey, think about it. The internet is the best information tool yet, so isn't it highly possible that I would find interested people to discuss this topic online? You're way off track, and it makes me realize that you're just having a grand time with this thread with no intention of actually learning something. Hey, if you and others want to help me out financially, maybe I could do more advertising. Then I wouldn't need to goof off on internet forums.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

OK, now I am really starting to get pissed! I have been an active poster here for more than six years. In all that time no one has ever questioned my professional credentials. Along comes this johnny-come-lately and right away people are getting on his case and questioning his credentials. How come he rates and I don't.

There was your call from god that was questioned. My understanding that in your profession that is part of the credential.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are not God, and you have no idea where I'm coming from, so why don't you just keep your mouth shut until you actually know something about me to come to such a conclusion.

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.

This reminds me of a recent movie I saw where patients took over a mental hospital after rising up in a coup against the institution (i.e., the doctors) that had tortured them. This was better than One Flew Over the Coo Coo's Nest. You are playing doctor NA, and you know nothing about me, yet you are trying to make it appear as if I'm not in my right mind. I can see through you, and eventually everyone will. This doesn't say much for you. I feel sad that this is how you spend your time if you are not here to even try to understand what I'm presenting.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And did you not see my response? Where in the world could we see a hologram if we didn't have a lens? Yes, it's true, that light produces certain effects, but in order to see those effects, we have to use the eye or film, which involves a LENS.

As I explained to you several times, the hologram is a photographic image that is made without a LENS. Like an ordinary camera or eyes, it doesn't take a picture in real time either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

As I explained to you several times, the hologram is a photographic image that is made without a LENS. Like an ordinary camera or eyes, it doesn't take a picture in real time either.

But, you're failing to understand what I'm saying. Light does not require a lens, but if we are going to see the hologram, we need a lens. Show me where any organism could see this hologram without a lens to focus on it.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But, you're failing to understand what I'm saying. Light does not require a lens, but if we are going to see the hologram, we need a lens. Show me where any organism could see this hologram without a lens to focus on it.

You said that it takes a lens to take pictures on film. That's simply not true.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're nuts!!!! I can see why in the movie where the patients became the doctors made absolute sense. You are the patient here, and you are trying desperately to stay strong in your persona of a knowledgeable person without ever investigating these truths. That doesn't say much for you NA. I feel sad that this is how you spend your time if you are not here to even try to understand what I'm presenting.

peacegirl, I told you a long time ago that if you keep going in circles over and over again that people would start to notice that you are insane. At some point they stop looking at what you say and more at how you say it and your broken brain becomes obvious. patterns of dysfunction become clear. If you want people to not do this then you should not post on one forum for too long... or you could get help.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Before looking like a fool Spacemonkey, think about it. The internet is the best thing yet, so who would not believe that maybe talking to people who are not in your immediate area, but who are interested in this topic, would want to discuss it. You're way off track, and it makes me realize that you're just having a grand time with this thread with no intention of actually learning something.

peacegirl, we have all learned that you are insane and do not have a clue that by each post you make it clearer.

[But]

Cornell Chronicle: Microscale camera

It's like a Brownie camera for the digital age: The microscopic device fits on the head of a pin, contains no lenses or moving parts, costs pennies to make -- and this Cornell-developed camera could revolutionize an array of science from surgery to robotics.

The scientists call their camera a Planar Fourier Capture Array (PFCA) because it uses the principles of the Fourier transform, which is a mathematical tool that allows multiple ways of capturing the same information. Each pixel in the PFCA reports one component of the so-called Fourier transform of the image being detected by having sensitivity to a unique blend of incident angles. While the Fourier components themselves are sometimes directly useful, a bit of computation can also transform Fourier components into an image.

Chip away..

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but it was a one time post. I am hiding that I am not the author. I would never do that.

So you would never hide that you are the author?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And did you not see my response? Where in the world could we see a hologram if we didn't have a lens? Yes, it's true, that light produces certain effects, but in order to see those effects, we have to use the eye or film, which involves a LENS.

So what, things exist even if we aren't looking at them.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where explaining that the lens is necessary for there to be a photograph, which everyone seems to be forgetting.

If you understand that the lens of the eye is necessary for a person to see and you understand the physics of optics as explained above, which is the standard scientific explanation, then you would understand that people can't see efferrently. But since you are insane and don't have the ability to cognitively process any of this, you do not understand what you are talking about.

You keep providing confirmation that you are nuts but are too crazy to even understand the more you post the more obvious it is that your brain is broken.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by But

Cornell Chronicle: Microscale camera

Chip away..

Wow, the applications are really interesting to consider

a side project related to work on developing lensless implantable systems for imaging brain activity. This type of imaging system could be useful as part of an implantable probe for imaging neurons modified to glow when they are active.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Telling someone they are insane and they need to get help is not an insult if they are insane.

Are you offering an opinion of peacegirl's sanity based on your experience with her on the internet? And if you were I'm not sure I would care. You behave very strangely for who you say you are.

Oh my, from what you just posted, are you implying that you DO know me, and therefore are entitled to make this type of diagnosis??? You're completely out the door NA. It is you that needs help.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

It's Bowen Family Systems theory. Everybody takes a little responsibility. Nothing odd about that.

So in your professional estimation the best model to apply to this situation is to assume we constitute a family?