A revolution in thought - Page 996

thedoc · #**24876** 03-07-2013, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Traumaturgist, I have been here for two years. Don't you think I discussed why man's will is not free in all this time? :glare:

I have no idea. But whether you've discussed it here before or not, it's still a vague and undefended statement as it was expressed. If we're going to date, we're really going to have to work on our communication.

L.O.L.

koan · #**24877** 03-07-2013, 07:33 AM

It seems, from a brief perusal of the other forum thread, that your mother just died about a week ago. You revealed you hadn't spoken to her for over 30 years. Your father only died 22 years ago. I sense some tension here. I'm pretty sure you spoke to your father less than 30 years ago. Why not your dear mum? Were they divorced? She didn't agree that he was chosen by God?

Are you sure it's a good time for you to dive back into this thread? Are you of clear mind just about a week after your mother died?

We worry.

LadyShea · #**24878** 03-07-2013, 12:25 PM

You misread the quote tag koan, that wasn't peacegirl who said that

peacegirl · #**24879** 03-07-2013, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I see light and vision are back on the table...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, you cannot analyze it this way. If we can see an object, the light is already at the eye because we wouldn't be able to see the object otherwise. That light becomes the mirror image on the retina. These non-absorbed photons do not travel beyond the point at which the object can be seen.

That the light is already at the eye is not the issue. Your problem is that you have no explanation for where that light came from or how it got there. The afferent account can explain where light at the retina came from and how it got there. Your efferent account cannot, and that is why it fails.

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) 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]

Bump.

What gave you the idea that it was back on the table? It's not.

peacegirl · #**24880** 03-07-2013, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Dogs cannot recognize their masters from a picture, which no one has proven. I know this is not proof, but for people to say that dogs can do this, is absurd.

Quote:

You cannot prove that they cannot recognize their masters from a picture. So your belief in this matter is baseless. There is evidence from experiment that they can recognize human faces from photographs....not proof no. But definitely evidence.

There is no real evidence whatsoever. It's a case of people trying to fit what they see into their deeply held position. Sometimes empirical testing that is meant to support the premise, turns out to be a faulty conclusion, which is the case here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All you have offered is anecdotes about the family dog and Skype, with the dog's behavior being interpreted through your strong bias towards Lessans being 100% correct in his statements about this issue.

And you don't think you have bias? Any person that is not stuck on this idea that empirical testing is better than observation, would see that a dog that has his smell disconnected would not recognize his master just from sight alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, you are the absurd one in my opinion.

I didn't say you were absurd; I said the notion was absurd.

Quote:

You believe that the circumstantial evidence that the afferent account provides proves him wrong, but you really don't know for sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know for sure that light that encounters matter, but is not absorbed or transmitted, reflects and travels. This can be directly observed by anyone and can be replicated at will under controlled conditions and accurately measured.

I never said light didn't travel, but it's the full spectrum that travels through space/time, not the pattern of the object, as if it bounces off and carries the image with it, when the real event or object is long gone. And please don't correct me on my wording. There is no better way that I can express what I'm tring to convey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You assert that light that is not absorbed does not reflect and does not travel, meaning that you are 100% wrong.

I didn't say that LadyShea. You're not listening.

Quote:

You do not understand why everything we see is already within optical range because of how the eyes work, not how light works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I do not understand that because you have been unable to offer any explanation of how the eyes supposedly work in your account, and your explanation attempts to date require that light works differently than it is known and observed to work.

I am not attempting to change how light works. I am only trying to show that if we see in real time (we're taking this for granted for the purposes of discussion), time is not involved, which means that delayed sight is not involved, which means although light travels, it is reflecting the real world in real time because light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause.

peacegirl · #**24881** 03-07-2013, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I state that 1+1=3 that is not me offering an opinion, that is me making an assertion of fact that is incorrect.

Okay.

traumaturgist · #**24882** 03-07-2013, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most of this thread was about this book. That was the original purpose. Now it's morphed into something completely different. But the truth is people think they proved Lessans wrong. They did no such thing.

"Morphed into something completely different"...All right.....now we (as in you and I) are getting somewhere! Oh...well, I thought so, until you turned around again and said "But the truth is people think they proved Lessans wrong." Again...for the (broken?) record: I am not in the least bit concerned with proving Lessans wrong or right (you'll notice that I do not contribute to anything about particular aspects of his argument - this is because I haven't read his work and cannot speak to it).

Thank you. That's the first honest thing I've heard all day.

Strange...because this is the main point I've been making almost since I've started posting in this thread.

peacegirl · #**24883** 03-07-2013, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well yeah, you are using a different username too. That's not a weird thing to do on the Internet

I'm narrowing it down to who I think it is. Vivisectus, Spacemonkey, or koan.

peacegirl · #**24884** 03-07-2013, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

How are the grandchildren, I forget how old they are. 2 of mine were just here and were picked up by their mother. the 3 year old was taking a nap. The 7 year old was playing with Legos.

They're doing fine, thanks. I have three grandsons so far. The oldest turned 4 on Janurary 29th, the day my dad passed away.

This is Justin's son (the doctor). The other two are brothers. One will be 4 March 11th; it's coming up. The other will be 3 May 9th. He was a preemie, and now he's in the uppermost percentile for weight and height. :yup:

My 7 year old was always right on in size for his age, the 3 year old is like your 3 year old, she is in the upper percentiles for weight and height, so at 3 she is wearing a size 4 and we expect that at age 4 she will be wearing a size 5 or larger. They really grow up quickly but when you see them everyday, you don't notice it as much. They just are what they are and you almost don't notice how much harder it is to hold them.

It reminds me of the legend of Hercules, when he was young and wanted to grow up to be strong, he got a very young calf and started to carry it around all day. By the time the calf had grown into a full sized steer Hercules was very strong to pick up and carry that sized animal around. Most people stop when the child gets too heavy.

He is definitely hard to hold for too long. He's not overweight; he's just solid.

Sometimes it's not how heavy they are, it's that they wiggle so much.

LadyShea · #**24885** 03-07-2013, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You assert that light that is not absorbed does not reflect and does not travel, meaning that you are 100% wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that LadyShea. You're not listening.

You've said it many times. Do I need to dig up all the quotes? I am happy to later.

peacegirl · #**24886** 03-07-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is exactly the kind of garbage thedoc posts. Nothing about the book; only about how wrong Lessans must be. He knows nothing whatsoever about what's in the book. It's a fascinating look at ignorance in full bloom. :eek:

And I will reiterate: whenever people call you out on your thoughts you always - always try and take things back to the book to avoid actually presenting yourself with an intellectual identity.

For example: you have persistently, steadfastly refused to deal with any of the intelligent issues with which I opened my commentary on this thread. I'll give you yet another example: you state that "some people already know that man's will is not free, and that makes it somewhat easier for me to communicate this knowledge." A huge and unprovable assumption, but that's beside the point because one can easily criticize this statement's logical coherence: if man's will is "not free" as you say, how does it make things easier for you to "communicate this knowledge" (I assume Lessan), since if we are not free we are less likely to embark on the open thinking involved in productively engaging with another's point of view? The alternative seems bleaker - namely, that the kind of knowledge you privilege is tailor-made for relatively non-conscious individuals or species who cannot, for whatever reason, avail themselves of the indeterminate freedom that inheres in Nature. Now, if that's the way you see the world, well, that explains a metric ton of things about you...but synecdochically attributing that to the rest of the race is highly problematic.

I'm not saying my thoughts deserve special treatment, but I'm using them as an example of your continual evasion - evasion, I might add, that doesn't lend any credibility to your defense of Lessans. I submit that where you see "ignorance in full bloom," responsible people see naivete in full retreat. You're in over your head...and you know it.

You have no idea what I am even talking about when I discuss determinism, yet you are coming to all kinds of premature conclusions. Wowwww, and you think you have me and what I'm bringing to the table all sized up in two posts. Ignorance abounds!!!!!!

If all you can say is "man's will is not free," then I don't think you know what you're talking about when you discuss determinism...in fact, it isn't even a discussion so much as a vague and indefensible statement. If you have more sophisticated thoughts about free will vs. determinism (assuming they are a binary dichotomy), the onus is on you to present your thoughts in a more coherent and thoughtful manner. Otherwise, if you simply leave it as "man is not free" then you deserve any criticism you get for making such a vague statement.

Traumaturgist, I have been here for two years. Don't you think I discussed why man's will is not free in all this time? :glare:

I have no idea. But whether you've discussed it here before or not, it's still a vague and undefended statement as it was expressed. If we're going to date, we're really going to have to work on our communication.

Communication is key, for sure. Please bear in mind that I am not the subject under scrutiny, this discovery is.

LadyShea · #**24887** 03-07-2013, 01:06 PM

Some recent examples from January. I can get many more

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes light energy does travel but the non-absorbed photons, which land on the retina when we're in the optical range, reveal the object, but do not bounce off of the object and travel through space/time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The wavelength/frequency does not bounce and travel through space/time, although white light does travel.

LadyShea · #**24888** 03-07-2013, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well yeah, you are using a different username too. That's not a weird thing to do on the Internet

I'm narrowing it down to who I think it is. Vivisectus, Spacemonkey, or koan.

It can be anyone who has participated on this thread in the last 2 years. The person said s/he is neither Spacemonkey or Vivisectus and knew too many details about things like the 500 page parties to be koan, who wasn't participating then.

LadyShea · #**24889** 03-07-2013, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Dogs cannot recognize their masters from a picture, which no one has proven. I know this is not proof, but for people to say that dogs can do this, is absurd.

Quote:

You cannot prove that they cannot recognize their masters from a picture. So your belief in this matter is baseless. There is evidence from experiment that they can recognize human faces from photographs....not proof no. But definitely evidence.

There is no real evidence whatsoever. It's a case of people trying to fit what they see into their deeply held position.

No, that would be you fitting what you see with your deeply held position. None of us, nor the scientists conducting these experiments, have anything personal at stake when trying to answer the question "Can dogs recognize their masters from a photograph?". Nobody's worldview, except yours, is affected by the answer.

But, because it is a specific example Lessans used and Lessans must be right at all costs, the answer must be NO or your deeply held position is harmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All you have offered is anecdotes about the family dog and Skype, with the dog's behavior being interpreted through your strong bias towards Lessans being 100% correct in his statements about this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you don't think you have bias?

Why would I? I have nothing riding on the answer. If the evidence points to either yes or no my life goes on as usual. Only you have a horse in this race, because if the answer is yes then Lessans was wrong.

Quote:

Any person that is not stuck on this idea that empirical testing is better than observation

LOL, any person that is not holding on to a faith position you mean?

traumaturgist · #**24890** 03-07-2013, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Communication is key, for sure. Please bear in mind that I am not the subject under scrutiny, this discovery is.

As long as we are in a forum of free thinking, and as long as you make statements about the nature of the world that lead back to you as a thinking "I," you most certainly are open to scrutiny - just like myself or anyone else. Given that we have agreed that this thread has gone uber-heterogeneous, I assumed that was a self-evident fact.

Vivisectus · #**24891** 03-07-2013, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well yeah, you are using a different username too. That's not a weird thing to do on the Internet

I'm narrowing it down to who I think it is. Vivisectus, Spacemonkey, or koan.

Sockhunting! What fun.

peacegirl · #**24892** 03-07-2013, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You assert that light that is not absorbed does not reflect and does not travel, meaning that you are 100% wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that LadyShea. You're not listening.

You've said it many times. Do I need to dig up all the quotes? I am happy to later.

I will say it once again. Light (the full spectrum) gets reflected. Light travels through space/time. Light is finite. What does not get reflected through space/time is the non-absorbed light. When we can no longer see the object, there is no non-absorbed light at the retina because the object is too far away.

A lot of the contradictions people think I made were not contradictions. They are just hard to explain. For example, we are caused to do what we do, but nothing can make us do what we don't want to do. These two principles are not contradictory but you have to understand why the agent is still able to make choices. The standard definition of determinism removes the agent altogether. No wonder people react to determinism the way they do. We do make choices; they just aren't free.

peacegirl · #**24893** 03-07-2013, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Communication is key, for sure. Please bear in mind that I am not the subject under scrutiny, this discovery is.

As long as we are in a forum of free thinking, and as long as you make statements about the nature of the world that lead back to you as a thinking "I," you most certainly are open to scrutiny - just like myself or anyone else. Given that we have agreed that this thread has gone uber-heterogeneous, I assumed that was a self-evident fact.

I don't mind people asking questions and wanting to understand this book. A large portion of these pages though were people flaming, cursing, and taking everything out of context to make this book look ridiculous. Just for a moment imagine that I am announcing a genuine discovery. Pretend I am Edison's daughter. How do you think it feels when I know this knowledge is genuine, and all I get are tomatoes thrown at me. It's hard to take.

naturalist.atheist · #**24894** 03-07-2013, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Communication is key, for sure. Please bear in mind that I am not the subject under scrutiny, this discovery is.

As long as we are in a forum of free thinking, and as long as you make statements about the nature of the world that lead back to you as a thinking "I," you most certainly are open to scrutiny - just like myself or anyone else. Given that we have agreed that this thread has gone uber-heterogeneous, I assumed that was a self-evident fact.

I don't mind people asking questions and wanting to understand this book. A large portion of these pages though were people flaming, cursing, and taking everything out of context to make this book look ridiculous. Just for a moment imagine that I am announcing a genuine discovery. Pretend I am Edison's daughter. How do you think it feels when I know this knowledge is genuine, and all I get are tomatoes thrown at me. It's hard to take.

peacegirl, a very large number of posts making the book look rediculous came from you. So many that it became obvious that you are mentally ill.

peacegirl · #**24895** 03-07-2013, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Some recent examples from January. I can get many more

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes light energy does travel but the non-absorbed photons, which land on the retina when we're in the optical range, reveal the object, but do not bounce off of the object and travel through space/time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The wavelength/frequency does not bounce and travel through space/time, although white light does travel.

Those examples are not wrong. The full spectrum of light travels at 186,000 miles per second through space/time. Non-absorbed light, which is the counterpart of the absorbed light does not travel through space/time. We see the object because of the light that provides a mirror image on the retina. The minute we open our eyes, everything we see is within optical range which requires no travel time. It does not matter how far away an object is because we're not depending on how long it takes for that light to reach us, since light is not what we're interpreting the image from. To refresh your memory: If the object is no longer present, there is no light that travels lightyears away that brings the pattern or image (call it what you will) to the brain for interpretation.

Spacemonkey · #**24896** 03-07-2013, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I see light and vision are back on the table...

What gave you the idea that it was back on the table?

Posts like this where you are again explicitly discussing light and vision:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Those examples are not wrong. The full spectrum of light travels at 186,000 miles per second through space/time. Non-absorbed light, which is the counterpart of the absorbed light does not travel through space/time. We see the object because of the light that provides a mirror image on the retina. The minute we open our eyes, everything we see is within optical range which requires no travel time. It does not matter how far away an object is because we're not depending on how long it takes for that light to reach us, since light is not what we're interpreting the image from. To refresh your memory: If the object is no longer present, there is no light that travels lightyears away that brings the pattern or image (call it what you will) to the brain for interpretation.

This is still completely contradictory. You can't speak of absorbed and nonabsorbed light if the only light which ever travels is the full spectrum. If any light is ever absorbed, then what remains to travel is no longer full spectrum light. If all traveling light is full spectrum then there is no absorption going on at all.

Also:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That the light is already at the eye is not the issue. Your problem is that you have no explanation for where that light came from or how it got there. The afferent account can explain where light at the retina came from and how it got there. Your efferent account cannot, and that is why it fails.

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) 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]

Spacemonkey · #**24897** 03-07-2013, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well yeah, you are using a different username too. That's not a weird thing to do on the Internet

I'm narrowing it down to who I think it is. Vivisectus, Spacemonkey, or koan.

It's not me. I only found the thread yesterday and I'm only half way through reading it.

Do you remember posting here that you would definitely not move on to another forum after this one? Do you remember us telling you at the time that you almost certainly would? What does it tell you about your own level of self knowledge that we can regularly predict your own behaviour better than you can yourself?

thedoc · #**24898** 03-07-2013, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just for a moment imagine that I am announcing a genuine discovery. Pretend I am Edison's daughter. How do you think it feels when I know this knowledge is genuine, and all I get are tomatoes thrown at me.

Edison had a genuine discovery and was able to demonstrate it, neither you nor Lessans have been able to demonstrate or explain anything about the claims that answers the questions that have been posed. The book is confused and useless as an explination and you have not helped by refusing to clearly address the objections. What are the observations that Lessans was supposed to have made, and what is the data that is the basis of his claims, apart from what you claim is in the book.

LadyShea · #**24899** 03-08-2013, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You assert that light that is not absorbed does not reflect and does not travel, meaning that you are 100% wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that LadyShea. You're not listening.

You've said it many times. Do I need to dig up all the quotes? I am happy to later.

What does not get reflected through space/time is the non-absorbed light.

You just said it yet again. It is 100% wrong. It can be proven wrong with a flashlight and a mirror

LadyShea · #**24900** 03-08-2013, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Some recent examples from January. I can get many more

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes light energy does travel but the non-absorbed photons, which land on the retina when we're in the optical range, reveal the object, but do not bounce off of the object and travel through space/time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The wavelength/frequency does not bounce and travel through space/time, although white light does travel.

Those examples are not wrong. The full spectrum of light travels at 186,000 miles per second through space/time. Non-absorbed light, which is the counterpart of the absorbed light does not travel through space/time.

Light is light, and light travels. You are demonstrably wrong.