A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Still, it’s entirely possible (and, I think, very likely) that she’s not consciously lying or hypocritical.

Well, who is? As soon as you notice you stop. That's kind of the point of it.

And so, it’s hard to blame her too much.

Then you have to try harder.

Is she an idiot? Signs definitely point to that conclusion

See the thread about intelligence.

Where Lessans is concerned, she seems to be utterly incapable of rational thought.

Rational thought is overrated in a lot of ways. Without careful introspection, rational thought can become little more than a tool to rationalize reflexive behaviour.

But for all anyone else knows, she may be perfectly rational in all other things. We’ve all seen this sort of thing before – for instance, the Religious Fundamentalist who is utterly incapable of rational thought where his/her religious beliefs are concerned, but rational in other things.

Because their beliefs are a central part of their personality. They are behind the door labeled "Here be dragons" (quite literally I think).

While I think it’s important to confront lies and hypocrisy, it’s not really nice to call someone a liar or a hypocrite, much less an idiot.

Oopsie.

That’s doubly true if the person is suffering from a condition that makes it impossible for them to understand that they are lying and being hypocritical.

I think that condition is called having an ego. I hear that it's pretty common in the kingdom animalia.

And I think that the evidence strongly suggests that peacegirl falls into this category.

Everything falls into categories. An interesting point is that they are divided up further depending on the context and whether the context is pleasing to the one making the distinctions. A liar is someone who tells imaginative stories that I don't like for some reason () and who I suspect intends to deceive people with it. Deception is.. (you can continue ad infinitum).

So what is the point? For a time, I persisted because of the faint hope that maybe, just maybe, she would actually pay attention, and maybe even learn something

You mean, your irrational obsession is to be a patronizing, condescending smartass, but it didn't work in this case, so you kept trying. (Notice that I didn't change much except color the words bad.)

– maybe even consider the possibility that Lessans might have been mistaken about a few things, and that his work might need amending.

I think that's the reverse of what she wants to do.

In hopes of providing some useful material, I wrote a 30+ page essay on the anatomy and physiology of sight for her. I was perfectly polite and respectful. In it, I explained in detail what we know of how vision functions

What we think about what eyes, brains, and photons (by photon I mean pflomps and/or gargleblahs) do.

– including, among other things, why we can be so sure that neurons not only do not but cannot conduct impulses from axons to dendrites

You mean, why they only conduct impulses from dendrites to axons backwards in time and not the other way around.

– and why, therefore, we can be so sure that there are no afferent components to vision from an anatomical/physiological perspective.

Her response was to declare – repeatedly – that she would not read it. Because, she explained, she already knew all that she needed to – even as she freely admitted that she was almost totally ignorant of the relevant visual anatomy and physiology. After all, as she has repeatedly told us, if science says that Lessans was wrong, then it’s science that is wrong.

In my universe, science is a method and what it means for a method to be wrong or to say something I haven't bothered to define.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by But

I repeat, why don't you just shut the fuck up?

I repeat, you first.

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Pummeling a deceased equine! Peacegirl doesn't have a clue how photons get anywere,

No one does. That's how photons work.

she probably has no real understanding of what photons are, other than 'molecules of light'.

She is not very special then. But it would be better to call them atoms of light.

She continues to refer to 'White Light' as if all photons are white and then decide to be one color or another on a whim,

Well, in a sense that's what they do. What decides is the question. I think it's more like a negotiation.

or the wings of light.

You know metaphors, right?

[But]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I repeat, you first.

What are you doing here and why?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by But

What are you doing here and why?

Good question. You answer first.

[koan]

Originally Posted by But

Oh shut the fuck up.

How many people do you know with diagnosed mental illness? I personally know six people with serious mental health issues. I'm not diagnosed but suspect I'm bipolar, along with having had schizophrenic "issues" twice in my past. If you are close to anyone with such problems ask them if they would appreciate you telling them they might be right about the world. Ask them if they think you would be helping them. Five out of the six I know would tell you to shut the fuck up. The sixth is still sure that we are all part the conspiracy against him and only Van Halen knows the truth about what is happening.

Let's compare notes on the people you know who are ill. I'm intrigued.

Aside from that, speculating about whether or not the entire world is an illusion is a worthy endeavour, just let's not pretend that some people aren't a step away from ending their lives if you indulge their fantasies.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I deserve respect because I'm a human being that has done nothing to anyone that would be deserving of such mistreatment.

I used to work at a car dealership. No. People don't deserve respect automatically by the fact they are human when they are trying to convince you of something.

Beyond that, you want respect for scientific claims without showing any evidence that you either understand science nor have respect for scientific processes. The type of respect you ask for has very specific and easy to understand requirements yet you refuse to comply with those requirements.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the importance of this knowledge is to understand mankind's intrinsic equality.

No, Lessans allows in his book for athletic competition to continue to let people know if they are good at a sport or not. For some reason he doesn't think intellectual competition accomplishes the same goal. He is only interested in eliminating certain kinds of inequality. The only "bad" things are the things that personally bother him. It's not universal at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It also demonstrates how words have caused us to be conditioned to seeing people as beautiful and ugly. The "ugly" people were handicapped from the day of their birth. This conditioning could not take place if the eyes were a sense organ. When these words are removed, the brain will not take a photograph of certain features in relation to certain words which give us a distorted version of reality. Children will not grow up feeling inferior or superior to others due to their physiognomies.

You misunderstand the process in how words are created. Someone doesn't make up a word then find a use for it, people observe something and if no word currently exists, they create one. The beauty and ugliness in the world is observed before the word for it is made. If the word induced the seeing... well, that never happens. What does happen is that cultures adopt ideas of what is beautiful from their peers (fat used to be beautiful because it represented fertility, now anorexic style sick is considered beautiful) but people did notice that some things were "better" than others and wanted a word for it, not the reverse. Take away the word and you still have the observation. In the world today we have people arguing about what is beautiful and what is ugly. We don't agree on which is which but we do agree that there is such a thing as beautiful and ugly. With out the words we'd find physical gestures (like pointing a finger down our throat... ever seen that?)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There will always be personal preferences, but they won't be made into standards that stratify people into layers of value. This knowledge also explains that just because we are superior in certain things does not make us deserving of more respect. This goes back to the fact that value is personal, not a standard that is used to make some people feel as if they are not as important as others because of differences in abilities. I think this knowledge is extremely important if it removes an injustice that has hurt so many due to words only.

It's that personal preference that the words beautiful and ugly are used to express. You and Lessans both admit that people will decide what they find beautiful and ugly, you just think that taking away the word will somehow change something. It doesn't change unless people stop believing one thing as more desirable than another.

On top of that, Lessans has people walking around beaches with a spool of thread above naked. How does this help? He should be recommending full burkas for men and women so you can only see eyes. If you see more than that you're going to find the mental equivalent of attractiveness registering in your brain. Most likely your new world will just develop sign language to express what the banned words used to accomplish. And every time you catch them at it they'll change the sign.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by But

Everything has potential value. It depends on what you do with it. Do you think that this kind of "vision" is not really about the eyes at all, but rather about how we create our own reality by observing it? Like in a dream?

Actually we discussed this. We offered the position that while they eyes do not shoot out sight-rays or something, it can be said that sight (that what we experience in our heads) is a lot more active than we tend to think, and that the brain does not simply relay whatever the eyes detect, but presents us with a model based on what the eyes detect. What we end up seeing is not reality, even though we tend to treat it that way. It is simply what the brain expects to be out there based on the information gathered from the eyes, and sometimes other senses as well: you sense of balance for instance can really mess with this model.

We can test this by making people look at a page of text, and every now and again changing a letter: people only notice if they happen to be focusing on that piece of text. We are not seeing a page, but a representation of that page.

We have also pointed out that no-one believes that things like beauty have an objective existence, but are cultural norms that we learn to see, rather than detect, even though there does seem to be a strong correlation between facial symmetry and what people tend to view as an attractive face.

All this has proven to be unsatisfactory for Peacegirl, even though we have pointed out that all of her fathers other ideas actually do not conflict too much with what we are finding out about sight and the way the brain processes it, and that there is no need to create a mysterious idea without any explanation to it.

It has not been made exactly clear why, but I gather it has something to do with his ideas about a type of being reborn that is not reincarnation and that somehow relies on sight being both efferent and instant, and an absolute and all-present NOW, but so far very little has been said about this so I am not at all sure.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

What do you mean? Try to clarify what you really mean by that. What exactly don't we have?

Afferent vision. We do not get an image of an object from light alone (i.e., when the object is no longer in existence), which is the accepted belief. The object has to be present, which means we are not seeing the past. We are seeing the present since there is no time delay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would see the Sun the instant it is ignited if it is bright enough. If it isn't, then we wouldn't see it.

You are still missing what I have been saying. If we can see an object (in this case the sun), then that means light has to be at the retina or we wouldn't be able to see it. That means the requirements for sight have been met according to the efferent model. If we cannot see the object, then the requirements for sight have not been met. Either the object is too small or not bright enough to be seen, therefore the photons will not be at the retina.

They traveled Spacemonkey, but we're not talking about millions of miles. We're talking about a small area in which the object is within the optical range.

You're going right back to the afferent model. I can't deal with this.

As I said, if the Sun being ignited causes it to be bright enough, then we will see it because the light will be at the retina. If the ignited Sun is not bright enough yet, then we won't see it.

You're, once again, looking at light traveling which is the afferent perspective. You are not looking at this in terms of the eyes looking at the object, which does not require long distances. It only requires the object to be within the field of view, and it doesn't matter if the object is 100 million miles away or a few feet away, as long as it meets the requirements.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I am not going back to the afferent model by mentioning traveling light. You yourself have just told me above that these photons traveled to the retina from the Sun. That means the traveling photons I am asking you about are a part of your own account.

That is very true Spacemonkey, but you're not looking at it from the efferent perspective. The only way to do that is to understand the difference between receiving light that has traveled through space/time, and seeing objects in real time due to how the brain and eyes work, which, if true, changes the vantage point from which you are coming from. As long as you start your investigation (if you want to call it that) by imagining light bouncing off of objects and traveling long distances, you are going to get the same conclusion and it's going to appear that it's impossible to see the Sun turned on before the light reaches Earth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are contradicting yourself by saying both that these mirror image photons from the Sun are both instantly at the retina and also that they have to travel from the Sun to get there. If they travel at light speed across an actual distance of 93 million miles then they are not going to be there instantly. And if they are there instantly as soon as the Sun first ignites then they cannot have got there by traveling across this intervening distance. So which is it?

There you go again. You are not getting it AT ALL. You are not even listening to me when I tell you that the requirements are met if the star is bright enough to be seen by the naked eye or a telescope. If it is not bright enough, we won't be able to see it, but if it is, then the light that allows this to occur (remember, light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause), will automatically be at the retina. I want to state, once again, that until the light gets here from the Sun which takes 8 minutes, we will not be able to see each other because the requirements are not yet met. That is why it's deceiving to talk in terms of long distances since I wouldn't be able to see you 5 feet away, but I would be able to see the Sun ignited if the light was bright enough and the Sun at that moment was large enough (or within my field of view) to be seen.

[LadyShea]

We do not get an image of an object from light alone (i.e., when the object is no longer in existence), which is the accepted belief. The object has to be present, which means we are not seeing the past. We are seeing the present since there is no time delay.

Hubble Deep Field Images. Nothing could be seen instantly, but after a million minutes of exposure an image was formed from the gathered light. How does efferent vision explain that?

[LadyShea]

the requirements are met if the star is bright enough to be seen by the naked eye or a telescope. If it is not bright enough, we won't be able to see it, but if it is, then the light that allows this to occur (remember, light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause), will automatically be at the retina.

We are listening to you, and you keep saying light is at the retina. You keep failing to explain how that light comes to be at the retina.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, I’ve been giving this some thought for a considerable time, and here’s what I have come up with.


First, is peacegirl a liar and a hypocrite? Oh yes, definitely so. Anyone who thinks otherwise should read the threads from the beginning. Still, it’s entirely possible (and, I think, very likely) that she’s not consciously lying or hypocritical. And so, it’s hard to blame her too much.

Is she an idiot? Signs definitely point to that conclusion – at least where Lessans and his musings are concerned. Where Lessans is concerned, she seems to be utterly incapable of rational thought. But for all anyone else knows, she may be perfectly rational in all other things. We’ve all seen this sort of thing before – for instance, the Religious Fundamentalist who is utterly incapable of rational thought where his/her religious beliefs are concerned, but rational in other things.

While I think it’s important to confront lies and hypocrisy, it’s not really nice to call someone a liar or a hypocrite, much less an idiot. That’s doubly true if the person is suffering from a condition that makes it impossible for them to understand that they are lying and being hypocritical. And I think that the evidence strongly suggests that peacegirl falls into this category.


So, I’d like to take the opportunity to apologize for calling peacegirl a liar, a hypocrite, and an idiot. Not because I don’t think that she isn’t, but because it’s unbecoming to say this. And because I really don’t think that she can help it.


For some time now, I’ve felt that it’s utterly impossible to break through peacegirl’s self-imposed wall of ignorance. Heck, she herself has repeatedly stated that she won’t read evidence that contradicts Lessans’ claims. And to all appearances, she’s utterly incapable of assimilating any knowledge that contradicts him.

So what is the point? For a time, I persisted because of the faint hope that maybe, just maybe, she would actually pay attention, and maybe even learn something – maybe even consider the possibility that Lessans might have been mistaken about a few things, and that his work might need amending.

But it has been almost two years now, and there’s not a shred of evidence that she has learned anything at all. So it really does seem like beating a dead horse at this point.

I mean, she started insulting and belittling people on her very first day here, even when they had been perfectly polite. Why? For the “crime” of failing to uncritically accept Lessans’ writing as clear, concise, and – most importantly – “undeniably true.”

In hopes of providing some useful material, I wrote a 30+ page essay on the anatomy and physiology of sight for her. I was perfectly polite and respectful. In it, I explained in detail what we know of how vision functions – including, among other things, why we can be so sure that neurons not only do not but cannot conduct impulses from axons to dendrites – and why, therefore, we can be so sure that there are no afferent components to vision from an anatomical/physiological perspective.

Her response was to declare – repeatedly – that she would not read it. Because, she explained, she already knew all that she needed to – even as she freely admitted that she was almost totally ignorant of the relevant visual anatomy and physiology. After all, as she has repeatedly told us, if science says that Lessans was wrong, then it’s science that is wrong. Because Lessans isn’t wrong – about anything. End of discussion.

Both davidm and LadyShea have patiently and thoroughly explained why Lessans committed a textbook example of the modal fallacy in his reasoning. In response, peacegirl basically replied, “Nuh-uh, and you’re big fat meanies for saying that he did.” At no point has she ever been able to provide any justification for her claim that Lessans didn’t commit the modal fallacy, much less demonstrate any understanding of what the modal fallacy is.

Many, many people have provided detailed explanations of how Lessans’ claims violate not just what is known of visual anatomy and physiology, but well-established knowledge in the fields of astronomy, physics, and animal behavior. People have patiently explained to her – complete with charts, graphs, and relevant citations and links – how Lessans’ claims are flatly contradicted by Special Relativity and by astronomical observations.

And in all of this, her response has been to metaphorically stick her fingers into her ears and say “Does not!”. When pressed, she has even gone so far as to say that she doesn’t care that all of the observational and experimental evidence we have available flatly contradicts Lessans’ claims – in her mind, that just means that the observations and experiments are “flawed” somehow, and/or that “something else is going on.” When it’s pointed out to her that many of our technologies actually depend on Lessans’ claims being wrong in order to function (GPS navigation and LIDAR, for example), her reply basically boils down to: “Nuh-uh.” What she will not admit is even the possibility that Lessans might have been mistaken.

How many times have I said that this position does not change any of the technologies that use light. I don't just say "Nuh-uh" and stick my fingers in my ears. I have heard you. I also read a lot of the paper you presented, and I appreciated your help in showing me the structure of the eye, but what does this have to do with Lessans' knowledge. How many times do I have to tell you that this came from out of the field, which does not make him automatically wrong in his perceptions.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Frankly, I’ve come to strongly suspect that she’s not capable of seriously contemplating the possibility that Lessans could have been mistaken.

I have had my entire life to think about it, and I don't think he's wrong. That does not make me a faith based nutcase.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I and others have begged – nay, pleaded – with her for nearly two years now to provide some actual evidence for Lessans’ claims. And she has never done so. Unless you count some demonstrably-false claims about vision in infants, dogs, and non-human animals – claims that, even if they were true, would not in any way support Lessans’ “model” of vision.

Why all of a sudden are you making these sweeping statements that Lessans has to be wrong about infant vision, dogs, and non-human animals? His observations are spot on. Even scientists say that it takes time for babies to focus the eyes; they just believe it's due to the ciliary muscle which hasn't been developed. As far as dogs, there is no proof whatsoever that they can recognize faces (even their owners) without help from their other senses. So what are you talking about Lone Ranger when you then say that even if they were true, they would not support Lessans' model? How do you know that?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Instead, we’re constantly urged to take Lessans’ claims on pure faith. We’re assured that Lessans was really brilliant and that he made all sorts of – unspecified – “astute observations” which demonstrate that his claims are “undeniably true.” When asked what those “astute observations” were – how they were taken, how they were verified, how we can replicate them, etc. – she simply repeats her assertion that he made certain unspecified “astute observations” which led him to his “mathematically-certain” and “undeniable” conclusions.

How many times do I have to tell you that this man did not use hypotheses. He had no idea that through his voracious reading and studying he was going to make a discovery. He gives a detailed description of why man's will is not free, and why this is an invariable law. He gives a very clear description of how the human brain works in relation to words and how it projects those words onto substance even if the relationship between the word and the object causes a distortion in what we see. Why are you ignoring his findings as if they mean nothing?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

When asked for some reason to believe that these “astute observations” were made at all, much less that they lead to his “undeniable” conclusions, we’re told to trust her. We’re to take it on her word that he really made these “astute observations” – though she can’t say what they were, when they took place, etc. – and that they lead to his “undeniable” conclusions.

No, he was sharing his observations. Then he gave his reasons for what he observed and what follows from those observations. They can be empirically tested, but for you to completely disregard them as if they are mere assertions is not giving him a fair shake.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

To “justify” this, she has claimed – repeatedly – that because Lessans was really, really smart, if he had made any errors in fact or logic, he’d have noticed and corrected them. So, it’s “undeniably true” that he didn’t make any errors in fact or logic. Q. E. D.

He was a human being. He made mistakes, but not when it comes to these discoveries. He worked on this for over 30 years. That in itself doesn't mean he was necessarily right, but in this amount of time he would have noticed an error in his observations if he was wrong. He wouldn't have hesitated to admit it. Why do you think he shared with people that he burned his first set of books. He wasn't satisfied with his explanation and he wasn't clear in his own mind, but he was onto something BIG.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

She grows positively indignant whenever anyone dares to point out that, to all appearances, her belief in Lessans’ infallibility is a faith-based belief. Yet she refuses to provide any actual evidence for his claims. Instead, she insists that she’s absolutely sure that at some unspecified time in the future, unspecified experiments will be performed which will – somehow – disprove pretty-much everything we thought we understood about neural anatomy & physiology, Special Relativity, etc., and in the process justify Lessans’ claims.

The support is in the book. It's ironic because a layman could more clearly see the validity or at the very least want to understand more than a professional because the professionals already have made up their mind that there's no value in his work. That's a huge obstacle; that the very people who could be instrumental are the ones who are giving him such grief, and for no reason. And, by the way, I have said over and over that most contributions in neural antomy and physiology are correct. I don't know enough about Special Relativity to debate it. What I do know is that you cannot in all fairness judge Lessans' work by saying it's wrong just because it questions the Moons of Jupiter, or Special Relativity, or any of the theories that are out there. He is deserving, in his own right, to share what he knows and if it conflicts with other theories, we have to go from there to see who is right.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Anyway, I rather strongly suspect that as far as Lessans is concerned, peacegirl is, in effect, a religious fundamentalist, and utterly incapable of incorporating new information where it conflicts with her religious beliefs. Witness the number of times she has made a claim, had said claim thoroughly debunked, admitted that the claim was false – and then, a few days later, gone right back to making that claim. She has done this so many times that it’s more or less a running joke.

What claim are you talking about that I debunked? Please be more specific. I have to admit that in talking to all of you i have clarified certain things in my mind, so if I was unclear in the beginning and vascillating back and forth, it was only because I didn't know how to explain his claim in a way that would make sense to a physicist without it sounding contradictory.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I don’t know that that’s so much willful dishonesty on her part as it is a genuine inability to incorporate information that conflicts with Lessans’ claims.

So: long story short, I really don’t think there’s any point in continuing to discuss these things with peacegirl any more. She’s never going to admit that Lessans was – or even could have been – mistaken in his claims. At best, she incorporates a bit of knowledge, then “re-sets” a few days later and goes right back to making the same wholly-unsupported or thoroughly-debunked claims. And so, in almost two years’ time, there has been absolutely no progress.

Oh my god, thoroughly debunked claims? What do you mean I re-set and go back to making the same unsupported claims? Just because I don't have written data does not mean they are unsupported. What are you even talking about Lone Ranger? You are not being fair at all.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That having been said, there has been some interesting side-discussion in the threads. It has been an excellent venue for discussing such topics as Special Relativity and how it relates to how we see, for example.

But for myself, I don’t think that I’ll be returning to the thread. It serves no purpose.


Cheers,

Michael

I'm sorry to hear you're leaving. I just want to say that if your intention was to prove Lessans wrong, and because I reject your refutations I am now considered a fundamentalist, the basis for your complete rejection of these discoveries is wholly unfounded.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is very true Spacemonkey, but you're not looking at it from the efferent perspective. The only way to do that is to understand the difference between receiving light that has traveled through space/time, and seeing objects in real time due to how the brain and eyes work, which, if true, changes the vantage point from which you are coming from. As long as you start your investigation (if you want to call it that) by imagining light bouncing off of objects and traveling long distances, you are going to get the same conclusion and it's going to appear that it's impossible to see the Sun turned on before the light reaches Earth.

Apparently looking at things from the efferent perspective requires blindly accepting blatant contradictions. I'm only starting my investigation from what you are telling me, and what you are saying is not consistent. You said seeing the Sun in real time at the very moment it first begins emitting light requires light to be at the retina on Earth forming a mirror image and that this light traveled there from the Sun. This is obviously impossible if this light has traveled the distance at light speed. If this mirror image light is there instantly and got to the retina by traveling there, then it must have left the Sun 8 minutes before the Sun began emitting photons. And if this light gets to the retina by traveling there and leaves the Sun as it is first ignited, then it obviously can't be at the retina instantly but will only get there 8 minutes later. What you have told me means this light travels 93 million miles in zero time. That requires the light to either be in both places at once, or to have teleported instantly across the distance. Which is it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again. You are not getting it AT ALL. You are not even listening to me when I tell you that the requirements are met if the star is bright enough to be seen by the naked eye or a telescope. If it is not bright enough, we won't be able to see it, but if it is, then the light that allows this to occur (remember, light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause), will automatically be at the retina. I want to state, once again, that until the light gets here from the Sun which takes 8 minutes, we will not be able to see each other because the requirements are not yet met. That is why it's deceiving to talk in terms of long distances since I wouldn't be able to see you 5 feet away, but I would be able to see the Sun ignited if the light was bright enough and the Sun at that moment was large enough (or within my field of view) to be seen.

You're just ignoring the problem and waffling. The light cannot be instantly at the retina if it takes 8 minutes to get there. You know that makes no sense. Light cannot be instantly at a point 93 million miles from its source if it has traveled that distance at light speed. This is an obvious impossibility and you are not doing anything at all to address it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have had my entire life to think about it, and I don't think he's wrong. That does not make me a faith based nutcase.

I'm afraid it does.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why all of a sudden are you making these sweeping statements that Lessans has to be wrong about infant vision, dogs, and non-human animals?

Because he was wrong about them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what are you talking about Lone Ranger when you then say that even if they were true, they would not support Lessans' model? How do you know that?

Sound reasoning and basic comprehension.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He had no idea that through his voracious reading and studying he was going to make a discovery.

And he didn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you ignoring his findings as if they mean nothing?

Because there is no reason at all to believe any of his 'findings'. He made claims that are not true and tried to support them with other claims that are not true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He worked on this for over 30 years. That in itself doesn't mean he was necessarily right, but in this amount of time he would have noticed an error in his observations if he was wrong.

Only if he were competent, which he was not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to admit that in talking to all of you i have clarified certain things in my mind, so if I was unclear in the beginning and vascillating back and forth...

You are still vascillating back and forth. (For example, over whether or not the mirror image photons at the retina traveled to get there. You've flip-flopped on this dozens of times now.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean I re-set and go back to making the same unsupported claims?

You've done this repeatedly throughout the thread. Do you need examples?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because I don't have written data does not mean they are unsupported.

Your lack of support for his claims makes them unsupported.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the basis for your complete rejection of these discoveries is wholly unfounded.

Your calling them 'discoveries' is wholly unfounded.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm afraid it does.

Because he was wrong about them.

Sound reasoning and basic comprehension.

And he didn't.

Because there is no reason at all to believe any of his 'findings'. He made claims that are not true and tried to support them with other claims that are not true.

Only if he were competent, which he was not.

You are still vascillating back and forth. (For example, over whether or not the mirror image photons at the retina traveled to get there. You've flip-flopped on this dozens of times now.)

You've done this repeatedly throughout the thread. Do you need examples?

Your lack of support for his claims makes them unsupported.

Your calling them 'discoveries' is wholly unfounded.

I have not read your post. I just saw that you said his discoveries were unfounded. You are the one that is wrong, and I have no idea why you are so intent on proving him wrong. Whatever Spacemonkey. The bottom line is you FAIL in your effort to make him out to be a fraud. You don't know the degree to which you have failed. I have no desire to talk to you anymore.

[LadyShea]

You are not looking at this in terms of the eyes looking at the object, which does not require long distances. It only requires the object to be within the field of view, and it doesn't matter if the object is 100 million miles away or a few feet away, as long as it meets the requirements.

If you stick to the eyes looking at things and seeing them if they can be seen, then there is no problem except that it's unsupported and tautological... it's when you name a physical location of light, such as on the surface of camera film, without providing an explanation for how that light is located there, that the issue arises.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We can test this by making people look at a page of text, and every now and again changing a letter: people only notice if they happen to be focusing on that piece of text. We are not seeing a page, but a representation of that page.

This brings up a couple of interesting points. Some time ago I read that if the letters in a word were rearranged people could still recognize what the word was but I believe the first and last letters needed to be in the right place.
The other thing is that some people can train themselves to look only for the spelling of a word, these would be people who 'Proof-read' copy for the printing industry. my wife has done this and says that when proof-reading she will look only at the spelling and not be aware of the content of the text unless she needs to look to veify the proper spelling when there are alternates for a particular word. She also says that after going over the text looking for spelling errors there is little or no retention of what she has read. This is quite the opposite of people who read for content and may not even notice a spelling error. I once commented that this lack of retention was a real pity as she could have had a really broad and extensive education if she had been able to focus on what she was reading. So in this case the proof-reader must look at what is actually there and not rely on the brain filling in or altering the image to what is expected. I'm sure there are other occupations where people must see what is actually there rather than what they want, or expect, to see.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Some time ago I read that if the letters in a word were rearranged people could still recognize what the word was but I believe the first and last letters needed to be in the right place.

This was a common bit of trivia on the internet a few years ago. Here's the Snopes article on it: snopes.com: Letter Order Unimportant

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

However, although there is some truth in it, the misspelling in the passage has been carefully done so that the text remains fairly readable. Compare with:

A dcootr has aittdemd the magltheuansr of a tageene ceacnr pinaett who deid aetfr a haopitsl durg blendur.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not read your post.

Fuck all point in replying to it then.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just saw that you said his discoveries were unfounded.

They are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no desire to talk to you anymore.

Where have I heard that before?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Apparently looking at things from the efferent perspective requires blindly accepting blatant contradictions. I'm only starting my investigation from what you are telling me, and what you are saying is not consistent. You said seeing the Sun in real time at the very moment it first begins emitting light requires light to be at the retina on Earth forming a mirror image and that this light traveled there from the Sun. This is obviously impossible if this light has traveled the distance at light speed. If this mirror image light is there instantly and got to the retina by traveling there, then it must have left the Sun 8 minutes before the Sun began emitting photons. And if this light gets to the retina by traveling there and leaves the Sun as it is first ignited, then it obviously can't be at the retina instantly but will only get there 8 minutes later. What you have told me means this light travels 93 million miles in zero time. That requires the light to either be in both places at once, or to have teleported instantly across the distance. Which is it?

You're just ignoring the problem and waffling. The light cannot be instantly at the retina if it takes 8 minutes to get there. You know that makes no sense. Light cannot be instantly at a point 93 million miles from its source if it has traveled that distance at light speed. This is an obvious impossibility and you are not doing anything at all to address it.

Are you going to start being reasonable, Peacegirl?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you going to start being reasonable, Peacegirl?

That is an unreasonable expectation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I deserve respect because I'm a human being that has done nothing to anyone that would be deserving of such mistreatment.

Originally Posted by koan

I used to work at a car dealership. No. People don't deserve respect automatically by the fact they are human when they are trying to convince you of something.

You are talking about two different things. I don't have to believe what someone is saying, but I can still show respect to that person.

Originally Posted by koan

Beyond that, you want respect for scientific claims without showing any evidence that you either understand science nor have respect for scientific processes. The type of respect you ask for has very specific and easy to understand requirements yet you refuse to comply with those requirements.

I don't want respect for his scientific claims. I want respect because I'm a human being, and I give respect to others (or at least I try to except when I'm being pummelled by a bunch of bullies). In time, people will give this discovery the respect it is deserving of, but again this has nothing to do with showing respect to others for no other reason than they are of equal intrinsic value regardless of who they are or what talents or facial features they may have. That's the compassion that comes through when you understand that man's will is not free.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hubble Deep Field Images. Nothing could be seen instantly, but after a million minutes of exposure an image was formed from the gathered light. How does efferent vision explain that?

I can't answer that. As I said, all I can do is share his observations and if they hold any weight after more empirical testing, then that will be time enough to re-evaluate what those deep field Hubble images are and what they reveal.