A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not if the Sun is large enough to be within our field of view. This is very relevant. If the Sun takes up most of the solar system, it is possible for the Sun, not just the light, to be seen in the way Lessans' described, even though it's at such a great distance.

You're still COMPLETELY ignoring the problem. You still need light FROM THE SUN to be AT THE FILM. This is a 93 million mile change of location, and you are still refusing to even try to explain it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you didn't. Not with respect to the post we are discussing. There were never two posts.

Yes there was. That's just the point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will look back to see if the post was deleted entirely, which I didn't want.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Posts cannot be deleted entirely. You will not find a second post because there was never any duplicate.

Spacemonkey, it had QUOTE at the end, and when I took that word out it created a new post instead of fixing the edit with the original post.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That being said, if you keep calling me a liar Spacemonkey, I'm going to take time off from responding to you.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you did lie. The evidence is quite conclusive.

This all has to do with trying to discredit my father using accusations that are absolutely unfounded.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Again, your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that they eyes are not do not have afferent nerves. On what evidence is this based?
From all data I can find the optical nerve is afferent, sending signals from photo reactive cells in the eye to the brain.
If modern medical knowledge is true then the very basis of your argument is invalid.
Have you produced any evidence to the contrary?

Yes, but indirectly.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes there was. That's just the point.

No, Peacegirl. There was not. There were never two posts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, it had QUOTE at the end, and when I took that word out it created a new post instead of fixing the edit with the original post.

Nope, that never happened. No new post was ever created. There was only ever one post, and you successfully edited it, calling it a duplicate when it was not. You even admitted to this after having done it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This all has to do with trying to discredit my father with accusations that are absolutely unfounded.

This has nothing to do with your father. It is purely about YOUR dishonesty and YOUR lack of credibility.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're still COMPLETELY ignoring the problem. You still need light FROM THE SUN to be AT THE FILM. This is a 93 million mile change of location, and you are still refusing to even try to explain it.

I understand that, but if the Sun is that large, and if my father's claim of efferent vision is correct, it is not an impossibility to see the Sun in real time because of it's great size. Remember, the requirements are that the object has to be large enough and bright enough to be seen, and the Sun would meet those requirements. I'm sorry that you still don't get this entire concept yet, but that is not here nor there in terms of whether these claims are accurate.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that...

My point exactly. You understand that there is a massive problem here, but you completely refuse to make any attempt to honestly address it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, Peacegirl. There was not. There were never two posts.

Well then I was seeing things. This will happen again, I believe, and I will show you the two posts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, it had QUOTE at the end, and when I took that word out it created a new post instead of fixing the edit with the original post.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope, that never happened. No new post was ever created. There was only ever one post, and you successfully edited it, calling it a duplicate when it was not. You even admitted to this after having done it.

I expect an apology soon. What would be my motive to say it was the original when it was edited? I am not ashamed of editing my posts, so I have nothing to hide.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This all has to do with trying to discredit my father with accusations that are absolutely unfounded.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This has nothing to do with your father. It is purely about YOUR dishonesty and YOUR lack of credibility.

This has everything to do with my father because if you can find flaws in me, then you can easily create doubt in the legitimacy of my father's claims. That's your goal even though you camouflage it by saying you are more interested in my mental health. Such bullshit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

My point exactly. You understand that there is a massive problem here, but you completely refuse to make any attempt to honestly address it.

I have addressed it over and over and over and over again, but you refuse to think in terms of what my father was explaining. You continue to assert that it is absolutely impossible for light to be at the film or eye if the light hasn't traversed this large distance. What my father was trying to explain, due to the eyes being efferent, if the object is large enough to be seen, and we see the object directly (which was never before considered by science since they always assumed that light brought the image through space and time) light would be striking the eye or film. You cannot even step out of your entrenched way of thinking to even conceptualize how this alternate model could actually work.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well then I was seeing things. This will happen again, I believe, and I will show you the two posts.

No, you were not seeing things. This whole 'two posts' nonsense is something you made up AFTER telling us you had deliberately removed the original post content because you thought the word 'extend' was confusing. You had already admitted to deliberately deleting the original post content for reasons having nothing to do with any editing or duplication problems. It was only when you were called out on the dishonesty of calling it a duplicate when it was not that you then made up this fake excuse.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I expect an apology soon.

For what? You lied, and have been successfully called out on it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What would be my motive to say it was the original when it was edited? I am not ashamed of editing my posts, so I have nothing to hide.

You called it a duplicate when it was not so you could remove an embarrassingly stupid comment without leaving evidence that this is what you'd done.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has everything to do with my father because if you can find flaws in me, then you can easily create doubt in the legitimacy of my father's claims. That's your goal even though you camouflage it by saying you are more interested in my mental health. Such bullshit.

Nope. When we want to refute your father we do so by addressing what he said. This is purely about YOU and YOUR dishonest practices.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have addressed it over and over and over and over again...

No, you haven't. You've repeatedly refused to address it. You are still doing so now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You continue to assert that it is absolutely impossible for light to be at the film or eye if the light hasn't traversed this large distance.

No, I have not. Instead, I have laid out all the possible alternatives, and asked you to explain how this 93 million mile change of location is achieved without travel being involved. You have yet to answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What my father was trying to explain, due to the eyes being efferent, if the object is large enough to be seen, and we see the object directly (which was never before considered by science since they always assumed that light brought the image through space and time) light would be striking the eye or film.

And we are granting you that much, and then pointing out that you would STILL need to explain where that light came from and how it got to the eye or film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot even step out of your entrenched way of thinking to even conceptualize how this alternate model could actually work.

YOU still have no clue how it could work. That's why you refuse to honestly answer my questions, address my reasoning, or actually face up to the problem.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Will we see any honesty today, or are you still evading this post?

Bump.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but indirectly.

Could you please provide it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you were not seeing things. This whole 'two posts' nonsense is something you made up AFTER telling us you had deliberately removed the original post content because you thought the word 'extend' was confusing. You had already admitted to deliberately deleting the original post content for reasons having nothing to do with any editing or duplication problems. It was only when you were called out on the dishonesty of calling it a duplicate when it was not that you then made up this fake excuse.

For what? You lied, and have been successfully called out on it.

You called it a duplicate when it was not so you could remove an embarrassingly stupid comment without leaving evidence that this is what you'd done.

Nope. When we want to refute your father we do so by addressing what he said. This is purely about YOU and YOUR dishonest practices.

This has gotten totally insane. I have no desire to talk to you until you apologize.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Could you please provide it?

I have Artemis, where have you been. I've been here for 3 years. When did you happen to stop in?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you were not seeing things. This whole 'two posts' nonsense is something you made up AFTER telling us you had deliberately removed the original post content because you thought the word 'extend' was confusing. You had already admitted to deliberately deleting the original post content for reasons having nothing to do with any editing or duplication problems. It was only when you were called out on the dishonesty of calling it a duplicate when it was not that you then made up this fake excuse.

No, I saw what I saw and I saw two posts. You are really working overtime, aren't you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I expect an apology soon.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

For what? You lied, and have been successfully called out on it.

Wow, are you that paranoid in general? Now I'm worried about you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What would be my motive to say it was the original when it was edited? I am not ashamed of editing my posts, so I have nothing to hide.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You called it a duplicate when it was not so you could remove an embarrassingly stupid comment without leaving evidence that this is what you'd done.

You are totally delusional which is why it becomes a problem in here since you are headmaster; someone who has a degree in philosophy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has everything to do with my father because if you can find flaws in me, then you can easily create doubt in the legitimacy of my father's claims. That's your goal even though you camouflage it by saying you are more interested in my mental health. Such bullshit.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. When we want to refute your father we do so by addressing what he said. This is purely about YOU and YOUR dishonest practices.

You are deceiving yourself because you can't believe that this is a real true discovery.

[Artemis Entreri]

I think I drifted away from the forum not too long before this thread started. I've been up front with the fact that I haven't been able to go back and read the entire thread. I've read the first few pages and have read back some.
If you don't think it worth going over again you could simply give me a post or page number that I could go back to.
After the mention of Lone Ranger's biology lesson on the eye I used the thread search to find that part of the conversation. It's really hard to actually find anything even with the search.
From what I did sift through, it appears that your "evidence" is simply Lessans claims, not any actual scientific research or experiments.
So I'll rephrase; is there any scientific evidence to support Lessans claim about the absence afferent nerves in the eye?
If your answer is yes please cite them.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

After the mention of Lone Ranger's biology lesson on the eye I used the thread search to find that part of the conversation. It's really hard to actually find anything even with the search.

On the Anatomy and Physiology of Sight

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're still COMPLETELY ignoring the problem. You still need light FROM THE SUN to be AT THE FILM. This is a 93 million mile change of location, and you are still refusing to even try to explain it.

If the Sun takes up most of the solar system…

It doesn't. Not even close.

The sun is the single biggest object in the solar system, but relative to the solar system as a whole (including empty space between the planets, which in fact accounts for the vast majority of the solar system) it is minuscule. Which you would know if you had read the link I provided, which of course you did not.

Even if it did take up most of the solar system, this fact would not validate Lessans' babble, as Spacemonkey points out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're still COMPLETELY ignoring the problem. You still need light FROM THE SUN to be AT THE FILM. This is a 93 million mile change of location, and you are still refusing to even try to explain it.

Object + viewer = real time vision (regardless of how distant an object is). The function of light is to reveal the external world. It is a condition of sight but does not bring the external world to us through space/time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

I think I drifted away from the forum not too long before this thread started. I've been up front with the fact that I haven't been able to go back and read the entire thread. I've read the first few pages and have read back some.
If you don't think it worth going over again you could simply give me a post or page number that I could go back to.
After the mention of Lone Ranger's biology lesson on the eye I used the thread search to find that part of the conversation. It's really hard to actually find anything even with the search.
From what I did sift through, it appears that your "evidence" is simply Lessans claims, not any actual scientific research or experiments.
So I'll rephrase; is there any scientific evidence to support Lessans claim about the absence afferent nerves in the eye?
If your answer is yes please cite them.

People know that my father was not a biologist. He didn't dissect the eye or come to his findings this way. He came to his findings indirectly. Looking through this thread will not give you the answers you want. He did say that if the eyes were a sense organ, a dog should be able to recognize his master without any other cues from his other senses. That doesn't happen. People are telling me that it has been tested and confirmed that dogs can do this. I see very little evidence to support this even though people say there is plenty; they say I'm just not paying attention. If you are interested, you really should get the book and read it at least twice to give you a basic understanding. Here is a quick overview of his three discoveries taken from my website:

Because it will be very difficult to believe or even conceive how a natural law, acting as a catalyst, can change the entire world of human relations for the benefit of all mankind; and because it is imperative that this fantastic BREAKTHROUGH be brought to light, you can now listen to the author as he reads and elaborates on the first chapter of his book “Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought. The actual discovery, which is revealed in Chapter Two, is nothing other than a natural, psychological law of man’s ultimate nature which has remained hidden behind layers and layers of dogma and misunderstanding — until now. This law prevents man from striking the first blow, which then eliminates the need to blame, punish, to retaliate or to turn the other cheek.

Two other natural laws are also revealed in later chapters. It is demonstrated that because we never understood a projecting function of the brain, words developed that allowed us to see, as on a screen, that half the human race is an inferior physiognomic production — homely, bad-looking, etc. But these words do not symbolize reality because people are not ugly or beautiful, just different, and when the truth is learned — the use of these words, and this kind of unjust, hurtful discrimination, must come to an end.

The other law asks this question: With the Earth billions of years old, and with millions and millions of babies coming into the world since time immemorial, doesn’t it seem a strange coincidence and unbelievable phenomenon that YOU, OF ALL PEOPLE, were born and are alive at this infinitesimal fraction of time? The undeniable answer will make you very happy by removing any fears you might have regarding your own death.

- Decline and Fall of All Evil

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

If the Sun takes up most of the solar system…

It doesn't. Not even close.

The sun is the single biggest object in the solar system, but relative to the solar system as a whole (including empty space between the planets, which in fact accounts for the vast majority of the solar system) it is minuscule. Which you would know if you had read the link I provided, which of course you did not.

Even if it did take up most of the solar system, this fact would not validate Lessans' babble, as Spacemonkey points out.

Yes, the Sun is miniscule next to how large it actually is. It doesn't look that big because it is far away enough that we don't roast, and yet not so far away that we would freeze. The space in between is there for a reason but this does not prove that we are seeing in delayed time.

By far most of the solar system's mass is in the Sun itself: somewhere between 99.8 and 99.9 percent.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/ita/08_1.shtml

[Artemis Entreri]

I'm reading the free chapters online.
He keeps claiming to have made a discovery but it sounds like he only ever had an idea. Not only that but it seems that some, if not all, of his ideas have been firmly disproven through scientific research and experiment.
To quote Lessans, "Merely to dismiss a carefully prepared body of evidence -however barmy it may appear- is to make the same mistake as the crank." I didnt have to dig far, that came from the foreword.
Well you've been presented with well prepared evidence by many in this thread and yet you still cling to this concept of Lessans which has no scientific evidence, no basis even beyond his own ideas. Theres a lot of talk of "discovery" "emperical fact" and "mathmatical certainty" but no substance to back any of it up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

I'm reading the free chapters online.
He keeps claiming to have made a discovery but it sounds like he only ever had an idea. Not only that but it seems that some, if not all, of his ideas have been firmly disproven through scientific research and experiment.
To quote Lessans, "Merely to dismiss a carefully prepared body of evidence -however barmy it may appear- is to make the same mistake as the crank." I didnt have to dig far, that came from the foreword.
Well you've been presented with well prepared evidence by many in this thread and yet you still cling to this concept of Lessans which has no scientific evidence, no basis even beyond his own ideas. Theres a lot of talk of "discovery" "emperical fact" and "mathmatical certainty" but no substance to back any of it up.

That's not true Artemis. I don't want to start all over again explaining that his discoveries came from his perceptual and reasoning abilities, and from his many years reading history, literature, and philosophy. He did not begin with a hypothesis. It is also true that observation can lead scientists to the wrong conclusions such as the belief that the eyes are a sense organ. Confirmation bias becomes a problem as time goes on. The fact that these findings are difficult to test empirically (not impossible though) doesn't mean he was wrong in his observations. He clearly demonstrates why man's will is not free, and this combined with his understanding of how conscience works (both observations are accurate), led him to discovering a psychological law of human nature that has the power to prevent war and crime, once the conditions of a no free will environment are put into practice. Since you are reading Chapter One, you should be able to tell me why man's will is not free. If you can't, then you need to read the chapter again. People tell me he is wrong or that it's just has an idea with no back up, yet they can't articulate what they read.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has gotten totally insane. I have no desire to talk to you until you apologize.

What am I supposed to be apologizing for? You owe us all an apology for lying to us by calling your post a duplicate when it was not.