A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You mean about the existential passage stuff? I think you should ask any questions you want, when you want to, but I'm also thinking it might be helpful to split the discussion of existential passage to its own thread, to avoid all the background noise of the other discussion on light and sight, etc.

I second that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not believe that this light/time delay factored into their calculations is the reason we hit the object. These targets are huge and they also travel. It also takes time for us to get to the target, which could easily account for the difference in location by the time we get there. I would also like to add at this juncture that you have blurred the lines between science-fiction and real science if you actually believe we can theoretically go back in time with a time machine. It's hard to take anything you say seriously now.

Originally Posted by david

This is quite incorrect, and I'm sure on some level you know that you are lying. In fact, it wouldn't be hard to calculate the distance we would overshoot or undershoot Mars if we accepted Lessans' claim that we see in real time, and that the apparent and real location of Mars in the sky were the same. If NASA used Lessans' real-time seeing claim to navigate to Mars, we would miss it every time. The fact that NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations conclusively disproves Lessans' claims.

It does nothing of the sort. There is nothing conclusive here.

Originally Posted by davidm

And, yes, under the solutions to general relativity, it is theoretically possible to build a time machine between two otherwise causally disconnected regions of spacetime, connected by a wormhole. The physcist Paul Davies, who is quite prominent in his field, even wrote a book entitled "How to Build a Time Machine." Why don't you, peacegirl, e-mail Paul Davies, and inform him that according to you, he knows nothing about science. That should be a hoot! Sort of like Lessans calling up Will Durant and pestering him on the phone.

I don't want to burst his bubble if this gives him joy. Maybe you and him will be the first to get into the machine, and be sucked into the wormhole. Let me know what you find on the other side.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Time dilation is a theory Lone Ranger.

You're lying again. Time dilation isn't theoretical at all.

Whatever the reason, GPS systems have nothing to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes.

Again, that's a lie on your part. Not only do GPS devices depend upon Lessans being wrong, it has been explained to you in detail exactly why this is so. By the way, "GPS system" is a redundancy, and suggests that you don't know what you're talking about.

Moreover, Lessans' "real-time" seeing would necessarily violate some of the most well-established of physical principles. And so far, the only response you've been able to come up with is to metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears and shout "Nuh-uh!."

I am not criticizing the relevant science, especially science that works.

Liar.

Among other things, you have, at various times insisted that: Relativity theory is wrong; the measured and calculated speed of light is off by many orders of magnitude; that we don't know how neurons function; that we don't understand the anatomy of the eye; and that we don't understand how cameras actually function. Shall I go on?

The world would not be destroyed just because we see in real time, nor would the stars be so close that the sky would be all white, nor would the planet burn up.

And you've conclusively proven that you're completely incapable of comprehending why Olber's Paradox alone demonstrates that we don't see in "real time." Or more likely, you're just unwilling to comprehend.

[peacegirl]

This is cute. The dog thinks there's another dog in the mirror and all he wants to do is play.

Cute Shih Tzu Puppy Playfully Battles His Reflection in the Mirror - Cute Video

[peacegirl]

Love this too!

Daily Cute: The Story of a Hummingbird | Care2 Causes

[ChristinaM]

"Look! A Puppy!" is supposed to be a joke.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't hold Lessans to a different standard.

That is a monstrous lie, and you know it.

The only "evidence" you've been able to provide for Lessans' claims is his and your say-so.

Despite many requests, you have failed to provide so much as a single shred of evidence that these so-called "astute observations" ever even took place.


Yet you immediately dismiss the literally millions of carefully-conducted, mutually-consistent studies which refute his claims.


You expect us to accept Lessans' assertions on no evidence whatsoever -- even you freely admit that you can provide no empirical evidence for his claims. But no amount of contrary evidence is sufficient to make you question his claims.

That's the very definition of a double standard!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're lying again. Time dilation isn't theoretical at all.

Again, that's a lie on your part. Not only do GPS devices depend upon Lessans being wrong, it has been explained to you in detail exactly why this is so. By the way, "GPS system" is a redundancy, and suggests that you don't know what you're talking about.

Moreover, Lessans' "real-time" seeing would necessarily violate violate some of the most well-established of physical principles. And so far, the only response you've been able to come up with is to metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears and shout "Nuh-uh!."

That is not what I'm doing. If there is no time dimension, how can time dilate? Come on Lone Ranger, be honest.

I am not criticizing the relevant science, especially science that works.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Liar.

Among other things, you have, at various times insisted that: Relativity theory is wrong; the measured and calculated speed of light is off by many orders of magnitude; that we don't know how neurons function; that we don't understand the anatomy of the eye; and that we don't understand how cameras actually function. Shall I go on?

You are wrong on all counts. First of all, it depends what is meant by relativity. Just like Savain said: The answer depends on whether one takes spacetime to be physically existent (as relativists do) or as an abstract, non-existent, mathematical construct for the historical mapping of measured events.

I admitted I miscalculated the speed of light. Why bring that up now? That was said two years ago and corrected. Why are you using this mistake to discredit everything I say?

I didn't say you don't know how neurons function. I said that there are still mysteries when it comes to the brain. Why are you so positive? I know Lessans would have put his hand on the chopping block to prove that he knows whereof he speaks. Could you do that? You never answered me.

I also never ever said you don't know the anatomy of the eye.

And I never said you don't know how cameras function. Why are you lying like this?

The world would not be destroyed just because we see in real time, nor would the stars be so close that the sky would be all white, nor would the planet burn up.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And you've conclusively proven that you're completely incapable (or more likely, unwilling) of comprehending why Olber's Paradox alone demonstrates that we don't see in "real time."

The distribution of stars is not uniform, so why should the sky be all white even if we were to see in real time? It doesn't add up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That is a monstrous lie, and you know it.

It is not a monstrous lie. He gave his observations, but because he didn't write the data down, you tell me I hold him to a different standard. I don't.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The only "evidence" you've been able to provide for Lessans' claims is his and your say-so.

Despite many requests, you have failed to provide so much as a single shred of evidence that these so-called "astute observations" ever even took place.

I'm sorry but giving the evidence you demand is not possible, therefore more testing needs to be done. Why do you think I want to end the conversation on the eyes? Let time be the judge. I am tired of providing the entertainment in here.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yet you immediately dismiss the literally millions of carefully-conducted, mutually-consistent studies which refute his claims.

What can I do? I believe Lessans was right. I do not believe there are millions of carefully-conducted, mutually-consistent studies. That's a lot of studies. Where have they proved conclusively that dogs recognize their owner's faces without other cues? Therefore, how can you honesty tell me that science's version of the afferent model of sight is airtight and that there is no possibility of an alternate model?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You expect us to accept Lessans' assertions on no evidence whatsoever -- even you freely admit that you can provide no empirical evidence for his claims. But no amount of contrary evidence is sufficient to make you question his claims.

That's the very definition of a double standard!

Maybe you count this as a double standard, but I don't see it that way. I understand his reasoning, and I don't believe the eyes work in the same way as the other senses. There are distinct differences.

[The Lone Ranger]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: You are the single most dishonest person I've ever encountered online, so far as I've been able to tell. You're even dishonest about your own dishonesty. Even when people quote your lies back to you, you deny your own claims.


The only question is whether it's pathological on your part or deliberate.


Meanwhile, you continue to accept any and all claims that you think support Lessans uncritically (though most of the time, they aren't saying what you think they're saying), while you instantly dismiss any and all experiments and studies -- no matter how carefully-conducted and how often-replicated -- which contradict him. Typically without even bothering to read them. (Indeed, you've frequently insisted that you have no intention of familiarizing yourself with evidence that contradicts Lessans' claims.)

And you have the nerve to claim that this isn't a blatant double standard!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

"Look! A Puppy!" is supposed to be a joke.

What do you mean by that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: You are the single most dishonest person I've ever encountered online, so far as I've been able to tell. You're even dishonest about your own dishonesty. Even when people quote your lies back to you, you deny your own claims.


The only question is whether it's pathological on your part or deliberate.

I haven't denied my own claims Lone Ranger. I have admitted when I made a mistake; isn't that good enough? The problem is that you resent Lessans because he didn't use the scientific method, and therefore you resent me for saying this book is scientific. Oh well, I'm not here to win a popularity contest. I'm just wondering why you're wasting you're time here when you could doing more productive things.

[The Lone Ranger]

I resent your lies and hypocrisy.

And as a scientist and educator, I have a duty to confront lies and hypocrisy masquerading as science.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what I'm doing. If there is no time dimension, how can time dilate? Come on Lone Ranger, be honest.

Here's what else makes you so contemptible. You have no idea what any of this is about. You have not got a clue as to what Savain is talking about, or what is ontologically or scientifically at issue here. This means you have no standard by which to evaluate the claims of Savain or anyone else. All you did was frantically Google the Web to try to find someone who would say something that you think, however tenuous, supports Lessans. But of course, what Savain is saying has nothing to do with real-time seeing. As I've already explained to you several times, real-time seeing has been established for hundreds of years. We've explained to you in great detail about the moons of Jupiter, and how the delay in seeing the light reflected by them, made it possible to measure the speed of light. This means that even if, by some miracle, the theory of relativity proved to be wrong, this fact would NOT make Lessans right. The theory of relativity does not establish that we see in delayed time; rather, it is merely a consequence of the fact that we see in delayed time. Even if the theory proved to be wrong, it would STILL be the case that we see in delayed time, and NOT in real time, as Lessans so erroneously contended.

You are wrong on all counts. First of all, it depends what is meant by relativity. Just like Savain said: The answer depends on whether one takes spacetime to be physically existent (as relativists do) or as an abstract, non-existent, mathematical construct for the historical mapping of measured events.

Total bullshit. Some physcists are substantavalists about spacetime, maintaining that is some sort of "thing;" others are relationalists about space and time, maintaining that it is not. Whether one is a substantavalist or a relationist about spacetime affects not one whit the theory of relativity.

I didn't say you don't know how neurons function. I said that there are still mysteries when it comes to the brain. Why are you so positive? I know Lessans would have put his hand on the chopping block to prove that he knows whereof he speaks. Could you do that? You never answered me.

I also never ever said you don't know the anatomy of the eye.

And I never said you don't know how cameras function. Why are you lying like this?

On the contrary, it is you who is lying, again. You are twisting his words. He did not say that you accused HIM of not knowing these things; he pointed out, correctly, that if Lessans were right about real-time seeing, then the whole of our science as as observed and constructed for centuries would have to be wrong. Thus, yes, if Lessans were right, then everything thaty we know about how neurons function, how cameras work, the anatomy of the eye, and on and on, would have to be flat wrong. But they're not wrong, so it follows that Lessans is wrong.

The distribution of stars is not uniform, so why should the sky be all white even if we were to see in real time? It doesn't add up.

This has already repeatedly been explained to you.

[laughing dog]

I think the forbidding people to do anything that might be viewed "hurtful" towards others is very naive. Pretty soon, some people would game the system. For example, suppose seeing person X earning income is hurtful to me. What happens? Or suppose it is hurtful to me that someone else is getting less pay than I think is right?

[ChristinaM]

I should go find some happy dancing around smiley but it's great to see you Laughing Dog

So Peacegirl, why don't you tell Laughing Dog about the economic changes that will come about after the discoveries are put into practice? He knows a lot about economics and I'm sure that he'll find it fascinating. Seeing as you don't want to talk about free will, determinism, vision, genitals, existential passage or whatever your dad calls it that might be a nice change of subject for you.

[The Lone Ranger]

And for the record, peacegirl, you didn't miscalculate the speed of light. You claimed that scientists had. And you offered this as an "explanation" for why there's no delay between seeing a supernova and photographing it.

This was back when you were claiming that cameras and eyes see differently. A claim you later denied you had made, until your own words were quoted back to you.


This is in direct contradiction to your recent claim that you don't question the relevant science.

And yes, when I explained why neurons can only conduct impulses from dendrites to axons, and not the other way -- and that the human optic nerve contains no efferent neurons -- you most-definitely did say that you thought that this means that we don't understand how neurons actually function and/or that we don't know enough about the anatomy of the eye to make that claim. As if the laws of chemistry don't apply to neurons. As if the eye contains some (presumably invisible), yet-to-be-discovered macroscopic structures.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean by that?

People use it in different ways but sometimes it refers to the way that a person tries to distract everyone when they've argued themselves into a corner. I'm not sure if it was because you didn't want David and Wayne to talk about existential passage or you wanted to divert people back onto the dog video thing in a roundabout way or you just wanted us all to take a break to look at the cute puppy but it sure looked like an attempt at a distraction.

[The Lone Ranger]

Attempting to distract people whenever it's pointed out that she can't/won't support her claims is one of her most frequent activities.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

There is a simpler answer. There were eggs long before there were chickens.

But only a 'chicken egg' preceded a chicken, but it did not need a chicken to lay it, as explained above. Basically your comment is irrelevant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by laughing dog

I think the forbidding people to do anything that might be viewed "hurtful" towards others is very naive. Pretty soon, some people would game the system. For example, suppose seeing person X earning income is hurtful to me. What happens? Or suppose it is hurtful to me that someone else is getting less pay than I think is right?

Would you like to read the chapter on economics? PM me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And for the record, peacegirl, you didn't miscalculate the speed of light. You claimed that scientists had. And you offered this as an "explanation" for why there's no delay between seeing a supernova and photographing it.

This was back when you were claiming that cameras and eyes see differently. A claim you later denied you had made, until your own words were quoted back to you.


This is in direct contradiction to your recent claim that you don't question the relevant science.

And yes, when I explained why neurons can only conduct impulses from dendrites to axons, and not the other way -- and that the human optic nerve contains no efferent neurons -- you most-definitely did say that you thought that this means that we don't understand how neurons actually function and/or that we don't know enough about the anatomy of the eye to make that claim. As if the laws of chemistry don't apply to neurons. As if the eye contains some (presumably invisible), yet-to-be-discovered macroscopic structures.

"Something else is going on".

[thedoc]

It is interesting which posts get thanks, and from whom. And which posts do not. It kind of indicates mutual support.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then let it go Spacemonkey.

Stop bringing it up and making claims about it that you cannot support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not worth arguing about anymore. I have done the best I can, but obviously not to your satisfaction.

Liar. You have not done the best you could. You've done nothing but weasel and evade, and you know this.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not opening this can of worms. The truth is it is impossible to understand a difficult concept such as what happens after death just by being fed short excerpts. It doesn't surprise me that people refute it in spite of this lack of understanding, thinking they know better than the author.

You don't understand it either, as you've already admitted. And stop complaining that we haven't read what you won't let us read.