A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only if the explosion was so powerful that the Sun's brightness would put the Sun in our visual range. I am not mealy mouthing about intensification. Intensification = brightness. If the Sun is turned on and it slowly expands and therefore is not yet bright enough for it to be seen, then obviously there would be no photons at the retina.

What Explosion? What intensification? Lessans never said anything about that, he said if the Sun is turned on at Noon, presumably like a light bulb that comes on right now. You're making shit up to cover his screw up and divert attention from the real question. Weasel!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Maybe? I agree she is probably out of her mind, I'm just exploring other possibilities. P. T. Barnum said "There's a Sucker Born every Minute", that's over a half a million potential sales every year. It's worth a try.

Notice though that P.T. Barnum was under no delusions as to his product and his audience. If one were to market a book based on it being "The Worse Book In The World" the very first thing you would have to do is not only admit it was bad but actively denigrate it. Completion for the worse of anything is fierce.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light acts differently except for the fact that there is a disputation in the function of light as it relates to the eyes, but light energy travels at a finite speed. I have never contested that, nor have I contested anything related to optics.

You've said light does not reflect and continue traveling indefinitely
You've said light can be in two places at once
You've said cameras, telescopes, and microscopes work efferently the same as eyes (definitely anti-optics)

You are weasel dancing so fast your head must be spinning.

[LadyShea]

Doesn't science assume that when light strikes the retina, we get the pattern that has traveled throughout eternity?

Eternity? What?

The light that strikes our eyes may have traveled inches or feet or miles or light years, depending on how far away the object that reflected or emitted it is.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Eternity? What?

The light that strikes our eyes may have traveled inches or feet or miles or light years, depending on how far away the object that reflected or emitted it is.

And the pattern forms because different photons are at different frequencies and strike different parts of the retina.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've said light does not reflect and continue traveling indefinitely
You've said light can be in two places at once
You've said cameras, telescopes, and microscopes work efferently the same as eyes (definitely anti-optics)

You are weasel dancing so fast your head must be spinning.

You just don't see it LadyShea, and there's nothing I can do to change that. I said that the pattern does not get reflected. I never said that light can be in two places at once. Yes, I said that cameras, telescopes, and miscroscopes will only pick up photons when the object is present in some form. I'm not weaseling, but I know this whole thread is a lost cause.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just don't see it LadyShea, and there's nothing I can do to change that.

You could try answering our questions about the things you want us to understand. That's the way these things are normally done.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that the pattern does not get reflected. I never said that light can be in two places at once.

You don't know what you've said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not weaseling, but I know this whole thread is a lost cause.

Of course you are weaseling. I bet you will weasel out of answering the questions in this post, if you even respond at all. And why do you keep posting in the thread after repeatedly discovering and rediscovering that it is a lost cause?


Those questions again:-

Regarding the photons present at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited, did they come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you should have admitted that you misspoke and that what you said was incorrect, instead of trying to deny that you said it.

This idea that the newly ignited Sun may not at first be bright enough to be seen is ridiculous nonsense, and worse (for you) it DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS LESSANS. He said that we would see the newly ignited Sun instantly at noon, at the very moment it is first ignited. Was Lessans wrong?

If the photons are not in two places at once then they cannot be both at the retina and also at the surface of the Sun at noon. If there is no teleportation, then they cannot be at the surface of the Sun at one instant and then at the retina at the next moment. And if they are from the Sun, then they have to have been at the Sun at some point in time, but they cannot be at the Sun at the same time that they are at the retina (i.e. at noon), for that puts them in two places at once. And they cannot have been at the Sun before noon, for the Sun was not then ignited. So how can these photons be from the Sun? All you are doing is ignoring the problem.


Those questions again:-

Regarding the photons present at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited, did they come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

Just want to say that this whole thread has gotten old. There's no interest in this knowledge. It's gotten to be a big joke. This discussion is bringing out the worst in everyone, so I'm gonna wrap it up. If I do go anywhere, it will be moderated. No more disrespect for me. I'm done.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just want to say that this whole thread has gotten old. There's no interest in this knowledge. It's gotten to be a big joke. This discussion is bringing out the worst in everyone, so I'm gonna wrap it up. If I do go anywhere, it will be moderated. No more disrespect for me. I'm done.

I will bet anything you care to name that you are not done at all, and that you will be back here posting again regularly. These questions will still be here waiting for you when you come back.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just want to say that this whole thread has gotten old. There's no interest in this knowledge. It's gotten to be a big joke. This discussion is bringing out the worst in everyone, so I'm gonna wrap it up. If I do go anywhere, it will be moderated. No more disrespect for me. I'm done.

The only way you can ever leave this forum is if you get professional help. You are incapable of leaving this forum even if it is obvious to everyone, including you, that no one is getting anywhere.

Get help peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This discussion is bringing out the worst in everyone, so I'm gonna wrap it up. If I do go anywhere, it will be moderated. No more disrespect for me. I'm done.

What makes you think the moderators will be on your side?

See you tomorrow.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just don't see it LadyShea, and there's nothing I can do to change that. I said that the pattern does not get reflected. I never said that light can be in two places at once. Yes, I said that cameras, telescopes, and miscroscopes will only pick up photons when the object is present in some form. I'm not weaseling, but I know this whole thread is a lost cause.

Take a simple magnifying glass and place it between a light and a flat surface. Most likely, you'll start out by seeing a blurry spot of light. If you move the magnifying glass back and forth, you'll see the spot of light changes from being blurry to being a reversed image of the light source.

Could you explain to me, in terms of "efferent vision", what it is I'm seeing on that flat surface? In the "efferent vision" model, why is the image sometimes blurry, sometimes a reversed image in the light source? In the "efferent model" why is the image reversed? In the "efferent model" is the magnifying glass doing anything other than bending light?

I'd be curious is you can even explain this phenomenon, because in the scientific model of vision, this is explained perfectly.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just don't see it LadyShea, and there's nothing I can do to change that.

You could at least try instead of weaseling, but no success is not probable

I said that the pattern does not get reflected.

No, you've stated that light does not get reflected. Even so, saying the "pattern" is the same as saying the "image" which is, of course, a strawman.

I never said that light can be in two places at once.

You did. Many times. Every time you say there is an instant "mirror image" consisting of light at the retina

Yes, I said that cameras, telescopes, and miscroscopes will only pick up photons when the object is present in some form.

You said they work the same as eyes (mirror image instant photons) through the magic of lenses or some such.

And, as the Hubble Images prove, the object need not be "present" (please define that), the object merely must have emitted or reflected light and that light must be intercepted by the film or CCD.

I'm not weaseling, but I know this whole thread is a lost cause.

Yes, you are weaseling

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The retina is a location and the Sun is a location. If the Sun is newly turned on at noon, and the photons are on the retina at noon as well as being emitted by the Sun at noon, that means light is in two places at the same time.

No it does not. It means the photons are at the retina

Are the photons also at the Sun or en route to Earth?

If yes, then you have the same photons at two locations
If no then you have photons teleporting to retinas

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why did you say "No it does not" when my point absolutely stands?

No it does not stand. Light energy is constantly traveling so how can photons be at two places at the same time?

Because you have stated they are located at the retina and also at the Sun at noon

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only if the Sun is so bright that we are able to see this star when it's first turned on.

According to Lessans scenario, this is the case. He sated we will see the Sun at noon.

Where all are photons located at noon in that scenario?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Unless you are not saying photons are on the retina, or you are not saying that photons are not beginning to be emitted by the Sun at noon

You are looking at the photons traveling to Earth before we can see the Sun (the afferent perspective)

No I am not talking about seeing at all.

I am only asking you to clarify where photons are physically located, at noon, in Lessans scenario. Which you know what I am asking and are choosing to act dense as a way to weasel.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

These images are empirical evidence indicating that Lessans observations hold no weight whatsoever

[thedoc]

Now would be a good time for those who are so inclined, since it appears that Peacegirl has left?, to offer examples from the book and counter arguments and evidence to demonstrate that Lessans didn't know what he was talking about. It shouldn't be too dificult and it would save the lurkers the trouble of scrolling back through 982 pages of endless back and forth, and evasion by Peacegirl. Now's your chance to have the last word? Go for it.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl is reading the thread right now. She hasn't left, though she might be refraining from posting for the moment.

[thedoc]

Even so it would be meat for her grist, if she chooses to address it, or continues to just ignore real criticism.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl is reading the thread right now. She hasn't left, though she might be refraining from posting for the moment.

If she is reading the thread, her compulsion will bring her back.

Peacegirl, looking forward to your next post, entertaining if nothing else.

[koan]

Trying to work out a good summary to give the psych for evaluation.

The Decline And Fall of All Evil
Seymour Lessans and his daughter Janis Rafael
©1961,1962,1965,1969,1971,1976,1988,2011

Lessans claims to have unlocked secrets previously hermetically sealed behind fallacious science and reasoning. If understood, this new knowledge will bring about the world's deliverance from all evil, war, and unhappy marriages. The keys to this deliverance to accept that there is no free will, that our eyes are not actually sense organs, that a human's sense of conscience will prevent them from ever hurting another human so long as they know no one will blame them (so we will blame ourselves) and that all world leaders will simultaneously be willing to take a test and agree to Lessans' blueprint for a new economic restructuring of a global community following the no blame principle. No nation will want to have veto power. We know they will co-operate because of the excellent history they've established on being able to compromise on a global scale without question or negotiation.

EVen better than that: Never again will we argue about who gets to hold the remote for the television, what to eat for dinner, or whether or not the person who just had sex with us actually loves us.

Never again will we find anything ugly because we won't understand the concept. When we realize that eyes are not afferent we will erase all the words that describe what we see in terms of comparison. Despite not knowing what attractive vs unattractive means, we will never ask our spouse to have sex because we know that is hurtful, but we will lure them into sex instead by dressing as whores and prancing around the house until they can't help but want sex. This new technique will always work.

Never again will we have poor people because there will be a guaranteed minimum wage for all people but there will still be great disparity between the rich and poor because the rich would never agree otherwise... and this disparity will no longer make the poor feel helpless even though the new system locks the rich people into a guaranteed wage of their current richness even if they start to suck at their jobs or it turns out they got rich through exploitation. Of course there will be no more courts required because of the explicit honesty that all people will have... so the rich will tell us if they stole their money or if they inappropriately used child labour in Malaysia.

Schools will no longer be needed because the environment will be hostile to teachers that no one will be willing to do the job. This won't really matter since teachers won't be allowed to grade students anyway. All students will be able to grant themselves degrees because they'll be perfectly honest, sane, and free from greed or self absorption.

Am I missing anything?

eta: and we know this is mathematically sound logic because 1+1=2, and 2 is to 4 what 3 is to 6

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

Trying to work out a good summary to give the psych for evaluation.

The Decline And Fall of All Evil
Seymour Lessans and his daughter Janis Rafael
©1961,1962,1965,1969,1971,1976,1988,2011

Lessans claims to have unlocked secrets previously hermetically sealed behind fallacious science and reasoning. If understood, this new knowledge will bring about the world's deliverance from all evil, war, and unhappy marriages. The keys to this deliverance to accept that there is no free will, that our eyes are not actually sense organs, that a human's sense of conscience will prevent them from ever hurting another human so long as they know no one will blame them (so we will blame ourselves) and that all world leaders will simultaneously be willing to take a test and agree to Lessans' blueprint for a new economic restructuring of a global community following the no blame principle. No nation will want to have veto power. We know they will co-operate because of the excellent history they've established on being able to compromise on a global scale without question or negotiation.

When you say we would blame ourselves, how can we blame ourselves when there is nothing to blame? You are assuming that we are going to do things that will cause us to feel responsible. That's not the case at all. Secondly, how can a nation want to have veto power when government (all authority and control) is coming to an end. Of course I'm talking way into the future, which you can't seem to appreciate or even grasp because this kind of response wouldn't even come up.

Originally Posted by koan

EVen better than that: Never again will we argue about who gets to hold the remote for the television, what to eat for dinner, or whether or not the person who just had sex with us actually loves us.

You are making the book sound ridiculous, which is your intention. But the truth is that when you extend these principles, it solves even the most mundane of situations in family life (such as who gets to use the remote), which often leads to irritation and disharmony. This knowledge addresses every single situation so it's not a surprise that it can solve the most difficult problems down to the most simple.

Originally Posted by koan

Never again will we find anything ugly because we won't understand the concept. When we realize that eyes are not afferent we will erase all the words that describe what we see in terms of comparison. Despite not knowing what attractive vs unattractive means, we will never ask our spouse to have sex because we know that is hurtful, but we will lure them into sex instead by dressing as whores and prancing around the house until they can't help but want sex. This new technique will always work.

Again, you don't seem to understand why these words do not symbolize the truth. How many times did Lessans state that personal attraction will remain, but the words that condition people to see certain features as beautiful and others as ugly will be eliminated. That means the distribution of what people consider attractive will be much broader than it is now. Those who were considered "ugly" or "unattractive" will no longer see themselves by a standard that no longer exists. He also did not say that we can't ask our spouse to have sex, or to use sexy language that puts our spouse in the mood. What is the option koan? To place your hands on someone who might not want your hands on him/her at that moment? This would not be taking into consideration the other person's desire whatsoever. This happens all too often where one partner is forced to sacrifice his/her desire when not in the mood just to satisfy the other partner. How would they know this person wants the same thing without extending him/her an invitation to make sure they want the same thing? To think only of oneself is pure and simple selfishness, and is not conducive to a happy marriage. All Lessans is doing is extending the relations. If you don't like these principles that can help marriage, no one is telling you to follow them. In the new world you can do whatever you want. BTW, what do you mean dressing like whores? That comment is indicative of your experience growing up because dressing sexy does not make one a whore.

Originally Posted by koan

Never again will we have poor people because there will be a guaranteed minimum wage for all people but there will still be great disparity between the rich and poor because the rich would never agree otherwise... and this disparity will no longer make the poor feel helpless even though the new system locks the rich people into a guaranteed wage of their current richness even if they start to suck at their jobs or it turns out they got rich through exploitation. Of course there will be no more courts required because of the explicit honesty that all people will have... so the rich will tell us if they stole their money or if they inappropriately used child labour in Malaysia.

What do you mean the rich will tell us if they stole their money, when they will no longer be able to justify stealing under any circumstance? You are making all kinds of assumptions based on a free will environment, which does not apply. You did not read this chapter carefully. The rich will get richer, yes, but the poor will have the opportunity to get rich. There will always be some disparity in incomes, but this fair economic system is not preventing anyone from increasing their profits, and it certainly does not lock anyone into a system that keeps them there. The guarantee is only meant to offer people the security that should they lose their job, they will keep the same standard of living that they had at the start of the transition. Even those who are in poverty will be brought up to a basic standard, so they can have the necessaries of life. But, to repeat, this does not prevent them from improving their standard of living way beyond what they started out with. You're very confused here. Instead of telling me what's wrong with this book, why can't you act like a little child who isn't sure what she has read and asks sincere questions.

p. 170 This means that if any citizen ever found himself in a position
where he could not find a job or one paying the amount needed and
had absolutely no cash reserve or potential to help himself (this
includes bonds, cash from his life insurance and anything that can be
converted to cash but which does not play a role in his standard of
living such as a car) then we, those of us in a position to help without
hurting ourselves, that is, without going below our own guarantee,
would desire to offer him this money by contributing an equal share
to maintain his standard or raise him to the basic level so that he
would never have to take away from others what he needs by resorting
to strikes, price increases, war to control foreign markets, taxation,
crime or anything else done to hurt others as the lesser of two evils.

Then when our basic principle is introduced as a permanent condition
of the environment it will be impossible for him to desire taking
advantage of us in order to gain at our expense because the
justification (the possibility he could go below his standard of living)
has been removed, although he will be completely free to take certain
risks that could hurt us, if he wants to, just as the truck driver was free
to speed up if he wanted to, but under the changed conditions he
didn’t want to. This does not mean he will be denied an opportunity
to exert his initiative for the purpose of improving his standard of
living (going over his 100%), but only that he will prefer finding ways
and means of doing this without taking any risks that could hurt us
because he knows we must turn the other cheek for our satisfaction.

Originally Posted by koan

Schools will no longer be needed because the environment will be hostile to teachers that no one will be willing to do the job. This won't really matter since teachers won't be allowed to grade students anyway. All students will be able to grant themselves degrees because they'll be perfectly honest, sane, and free from greed or self absorption.

Am I missing anything?

Yes, you are missing everything.

Originally Posted by koan

eta: and we know this is mathematically sound logic because 1+1=2, and 2 is to 4 what 3 is to 6

I couldn't help from coming back because you're so utterly mistaken koan. I do give you that your "incomplete" summary is focused on the right thing, but the rest is far from accurate. Teachers will not have the authority to grade students because that will not be their role in the new world. Students will judge themselves by a much higher standard. Do you not get what I'm expressing here, or are you just out to condemn me because that's your goal? Being able to judge oneself according to the standards that exist increases responsibility; it does not decrease it which you are trying desperately to prove wrong, but it's not gonna happen because it's not wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are the photons also at the Sun or en route to Earth?

If yes, then you have the same photons at two locations
If no then you have photons teleporting to retinas

Because you have stated they are located at the retina and also at the Sun at noon

According to Lessans scenario, this is the case. He sated we will see the Sun at noon.

Where all are photons located at noon in that scenario?

Yes, it does. Unless you are not saying photons are on the retina, or you are not saying that photons are not beginning to be emitted by the Sun at noon

No I am not talking about seeing at all.

I am only asking you to clarify where photons are physically located, at noon, in Lessans scenario. Which you know what I am asking and are choosing to act dense as a way to weasel.

You are so confused as to what efferent vision allows that you think you are right in your condemnation. But you are not right, and for you to act as if you do is a total sham LadyShea. Just admit that you aren't sure, and that would be a great leap toward deciphering what is actually true from what is THOUGHT to be true.

[thedoc]

Well, I was right, "entertaining if nothing else".

Peacegirl, you say that the book was not wrong, would you care to try to prove it. With something other than Lessans incoherent ramblings.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Students will judge themselves by a much higher standard.

Yes, students will start knowing nothing about a subject, and then out of ignorance, will judge themselves competent, after at least a week of casual reading. We just need to be sure the comicbooks are up to date?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so confused as to what efferent vision allows that you think you are right in your condemnation. But you are not right, and for you to act as if you do is a total sham LadyShea. Just admit that you aren't sure, and that would be a great leap toward deciphering what is actually true from what is THOUGHT to be true.

I am sure you are copping out with your weaseling. Answer the questions, that will help decipher the efferent account, which you currently have as something from Wonderland.

Name all the locations of light photons at noon in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and being able to see the Sun at noon. In case you missed it, the time is one time 12:00:00. According to Lessans the Sun was just ignited, and it can be seen at this time.

Are there photons located on retinas at 12:00:00? If yes, where did they come from? How did they get there?
Are there photons located on the Sun just being emitted at 12:00:00?