A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Changing to another subject won't end your weaseling.

Who said I'm changing to another topic? I think this thread has deteriorated and it's not providing any useful discussion related to the book, which makes me feel that I've overstayed my welcome. Why are you pressing me on this? It's not going to be reconciled in here. I'm not forcing you to change your worldview, so let it go.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said I'm changing to another topic?

What else are you going to do? You just said you wouldn't discuss vision anymore (only to immediately make another post on vision), and we both know you can't leave.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Not just very selective but very sporadic. She has trouble remembering her own posts on a forum no less.

No disagreement there.

She has exhibited more nuanced behavior than that. From time to time as you have pointed out, she has remembered errors she has made, but eventually she does forget what they are. And doesn't seem to be able to recognize them again even if they are pointed out to her. If peacegirl came across as a very clever and quick witted person then a case could be made for dishonesty on her part. However dishonesty requires a deliberate knowing act of deception, and I don't think peacegirl has enough presence of mind to pull off such a thing.

After all these years she comes across as a very sad, patheic and insane person who is not so insane that help would be forced on her. She appears doomed to remain in her state until she dies or her mental problems get so bad she is unable to function and then maybe the county or city will get involved.

Thank you NA. I don't think you meant it to, but I am laughing hysterically.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It really didn't appear that you were trying at all.

While your posts were not the only thing, Lessans own statements in the book were sufficient to disprove his claims, your claims just added to the disproof.

How does the brain project words out through the eyes when there are no efferent nerves in the eye itself?

There does not have to be efferent nerves in the eye, which involves movement. Just because you don't understand does not mean that it's impossible. The brain is mysterious, and scientists don't know enough regarding this uncharted territory to be sure of what's going on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I thought you said you were finished weaseling? Was that another lie?

It doesn't take an expert to know that photons can't be somewhere without any possible explanation for where they came from or how they got there.

Your non-model doesn't make sense to you either. And you can't see how it works without violating physics.

You didn't do the best that you could. You lied, weaseled, and evaded without making any effort at all to address the problems explained to you.

Your non-model isn't even congruent with itself.

That is why I'm saying it's time to drop this topic. There is no way it will be reconciled in here. You can think it's wrong, and you're entitled to think what you want. Why are you harping on this if you don't believe it's possible? Let it go. Whether you let go or not, I need a break.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I'm going to stop doing it because I'm finished talking about the eyes.

Care to explain how the above was anything other than a complete lie?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

At least you won't have to deal with a weasel anymore. That should make you happy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether you let go or not, I need a break.

Then take a break and come back when you're ready to stop lying and evading, and start being reasonable.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because you don't understand does not mean that it's impossible. The brain is mysterious, and scientists don't know enough regarding this uncharted territory to be sure of what's going on.

If we were debating the existence of a deity, this would be called the God of the Gaps argument. Lessans of the Gaps doesn't have the same ring to it, but it fits.

A few simple substitutions and voila! Lessans of the Gaps

Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it Lessans was right? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God Lessans ideas, then God is Lessans ideas are in an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.

"The Moon, the Tides and why Neil DeGrasse Tyson is Colbert's God". © 2007-2011 The Science Network. January 20, 2011.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There does not have to be efferent nerves in the eye, which involves movement. Just because you don't understand does not mean that it's impossible. The brain is mysterious, and scientists don't know enough regarding this uncharted territory to be sure of what's going on.

I'm not refering to movement, either of the eye or the object being seen. Lessans claimes there were no afferent nerves in the eye, and now you are claiming there doesn't need to be any efferent nerves. That doesn't leave much in the way of nerves for vision. Perhaps you are suggesting that "something else is ging on" such as some 'spiritual' connection between the brain and the eyes that doesn't rely on nerves, this would be possible if you accept telepathy as a viable means of communication. Was spiritualism part of the concept of Lessans book, especially chapter 10? That would explain a lot in his system, especially vision, if spiritualism is the means of the image of the object being instantly at the eye, and then telapathically to the brain. Telapathy has been suggested as a possibility but has not been reliably demonstrated leading to a lot of skepticism as to it's viability. If Lessans had any data on the subject, now would be a good time to present it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then take a break and come back when you're ready to stop lying and evading, and start being reasonable.

I'm truly not interested in revisiting this topic. You can use this against me if you want. I'm that exhausted that I really don't care what you do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If we were debating the existence of a deity, this would be called the God of the Gaps argument. Lessans of the Gaps doesn't have the same ring to it, but it fits.

A few simple substitutions and voila! Lessans of the Gaps

I can't even begin to fight you on this. I just can't do it. I will be looked at as a nutcase and I know it. Your conclusions are so full of holes that I'm flabbergasted that you don't see or even admit that maybe you don't hold the truth in hand. It's really okay because I am not depending on anybody to validate these findings. Lessans is a fraud, according to science, therefore you are right. As I told Spacemonkey, he wins the jackpot. I hope that makes everyone happy, including Lone Ranger, who has the privilege of having the last word.

[LadyShea]

You are not being forced to continue this discussion. If you find it exhausting and depressing then simply stop. Why do you continue to post unless you feel you (or Lessans) are benefiting?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't even begin to dissect what you think disproves Lessans. It is so convoluted that I refuse to go there. I may read it later on, but I believe it will not make a difference Ladyshea. Use this to discredit him. It's really okay. As I told Spacemonkey, he won, and you did too. I hope you are happy.

Huh? I posted a simple quote demonstrating a particular type of argument you used that is similar to what religious people use. There's nothing else to read, nor is there anything to dissect.

As to your feeling I've offered convoluted arguments, that's the pot calling the kettle black sister.

[Vivisectus]

I also suffer from intense observation. Usually in the morning, right after my first cup of coffee. But fortunately it goes away if I remember to eat enough fibre.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are not being forced to continue this discussion. If you find it exhausting and depressing then simply stop. Why do you continue to post unless you feel you (or Lessans) are benefiting?

I am stopping LadyShea. It's just sad to me that, by default, people will conclude Lessans lost. This is so crazy it doesn't hold any interest for me anymore.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Lessans is a fraud, according to science

We don't know for sure he was a fraud. More likely just a bit of a buffoon with a hugely inflated sense of his own abilities: if you look at how little he knew about the subjects he spoke about, it is entirely likely that he was completely unaware of the problems.. He probably did not even know there was such a thing as the scientific method, and never even realized that his ideas about sight were impossible. It seems he never felt any need to check his ideas against reality, so it is entirely likely that he was simply oblivious.

You do not have that excuse, however.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still stuck on that? Oh my goodness, you will hold this against him forever because you have nothing else.

Try actually reading posts before responding. I wasn't talking about your father's frivolous lawsuit against President Carter. The taxpayer money that little misadventure wasted was a drop in the bucket compared to the public funds expended on your shenanigans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And yes, I was afraid to tell people he was my father.

And you responded to that fear by lying. After all, that's what liars do -- they tell lies.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it's the wrong person you're calling a liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are very irritating, you know that?

Oh yeah, I'll cop to that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Huh? I posted a simple quote demonstrating a particular type of argument you used that is similar to what religious people use. There's nothing else to read, nor is there anything to dissect.

As to your feeling I've offered convoluted arguments, that's the pot calling the kettle black sister.

You did the same thing with the word "crackpot". You found a crackpot index, and you said Lessans fit every category. There was no gap in Lessans' understanding. If there was, his discovery would not be a necessary truth. It would be a contingent truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Try actually reading posts before responding. I wasn't talking about your father's frivolous lawsuit against President Carter. The taxpayer money that little misadventure wasted was a drop in the bucket compared to the public funds expended on your shenanigans.

There were no public funds used.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And yes, I was afraid to tell people he was my father.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

And you responded to that fear by lying. After all, that's what liars do -- they tell lies.

Sometimes a person has to do what he feels is best considering the situation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it's the wrong person you're calling a liar.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

True, but it's not honest to turn this into a label. I'm sure you have fibbed at one time in your life, but no one calls you a liar.

[peacegirl]

Employee Claims Famous Buffet Chain Serves Dumpster Food - Careers Articles

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Huh? I posted a simple quote demonstrating a particular type of argument you used that is similar to what religious people use. There's nothing else to read, nor is there anything to dissect.

As to your feeling I've offered convoluted arguments, that's the pot calling the kettle black sister.

You did the same thing with the word "crackpot". You found a crackpot index, and you said Lessans fit every category.

added: There is no gap in Lessans' understanding, as you claim. If there was, his discovery would not be a necessary truth. It would be a contingent truth.

[peacegirl]

What Dogs Teach Us (Video) | Care2 Healthy Living

[peacegirl]

http://www.ihealthtube.com/aspx/view...14967850c3764f

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did the same thing with the word "crackpot". You found a crackpot index, and you said Lessans fit every category.

added: There is no gap in Lessans' understanding, as you claim. If there was, his discovery would not be a necessary truth. It would be a contingent truth.

It has nothing to do with gaps in Lessans knowledge. Are you unable to read a single paragraph and understand it? Are you unable to Google a short phrase?

The "X of the Gaps" argument takes whatever gap exists within scientific knowledge and sticks in whatever favored belief might be able to fit there.

You said science doesn't know everything about the brain so you can stick efferent vision into that gap in knowledge.

God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God’s action and therefore of God’s existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain. The assumption is that if science cannot explain how something happened, then God must be the explanation. But the danger of using a God-of-the-gaps argument for the action or existence of God is that it lacks the foresight of future scientific discoveries. With the continuing advancement of science, God-of-the-gaps explanations often get replaced by natural mechanisms. Therefore, when such arguments are used as apologetic tools, scientific research can unnecessarily be placed at odds with belief in God.1 The recent Intelligent Design (ID) movement highlights this problem. Certain ID arguments, like the irreducible complexity of the human eye or the bacterial flagellum, are rapidly being undercut by new scientific discoveries. http://biologos.org/questions/god-of-the-gaps