A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Isn't it charming how she uses the yawn smilie -- she is so preposterous as to suppose she is stating an evident fact, and is bored with repeating it to us slow people.

In all honesty, don't you think this conversation has gotten boring? I can't keep my eyes open.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seeing is the acquiring of information about the object being seen. The brain does other stuff with the information it acquires, but seeing is the act of acquiring. Information has been transferred.

You are purposefully making yourself look like the stupidest of morons by continuing to claim you don't understand or accept this simplest of facts.

I can play this game too. You are a stupid moron for thinking I'm a stupid moron.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Is this 'imaginary mass space' anything like Lessans 'Imaginary discoveries' leading to his 'imaginary Golden Age', based on 'Imaginary efferent vision'?

The more you make imaginary fun of this discovery based on your imaginary critique, the longer it will take to bring about the Golden Age which is anything but imaginary.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Fuck off, asswit. How about you read The Lone Ranger's 35-page long essay, with big pretty pictures to help your empty head understand it, and then YOU tell US what you learned from it.

You're a goddamned con artist and a lackwit. Fortunately you're a bad con artist and your lacwittery is glaringly obvious. That is why you will remain a cult of one. Even your children won't bother with this stupid rubbish.

Be quiet David. Your ranting and raving adds up to a big fat ZERO. You hate that Lessans could be right, as if he is out to get you. How idiotic!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Star Trek

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.



































































The End

Oh my gosh, after reading this I couldn't stop laughing. David, do you realize that you missed your calling??? You could be a comedian if you weren't so invested in proving Lessans wrong. I would actually pay to see you. Whew, I needed that laugh. Thanks for giving me the strength to carry on!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

NO, You started this, now finish what you started, or admit that you and Lessans are WRONG.

There is nothing to admit. If I agreed just to please you, I'd be lying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have read the book, many sections twice or more, and given the description, I was hoping for something good, but the writing was very confusing and the claims so outrageous that by the time I finished there could be only one conclusion, and that without further evidence, Lessans was wrong.

There's one other possibility. Your brain isn't able to see the relations no matter how clear the principles have been relayed. I don't mean to be nasty, but that could be a possible reason. The other more likely explanation is that you haven't read the book carefully enough.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for giving me the strength to carry on!!!

I will be to blame for the next 300 pages.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I will be to blame for the next 300 pages.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can play this game too. You are a stupid moron for thinking I'm a stupid moron.

I didn't say I think you are a stupid moron. Learn to read.

I said, clearly, you are making yourself look stupid by claiming you don't understand a simple, undeniable fact. I do not think for one second you don't understand, I think you are pretending to because the actual fact refutes Lessans ideas. You are dissembling like the best evangelists.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing my best specious_reaons, and if I can't meet your expectations, it doesn't prove that Lessans was wrong in any way, shape, or form.

Of course it doesn't disprove anything. However, until you can come up with something, the concept of efferent vision is not worth studying. No one will perform the empirical studies you think will confirm efferent vision until you find a problem with the current theory that is explained better by Lessans' ideas.

I'm so confident that Lessans' ideas will never unseat the current theory that I'm telling you exactly how you could achieve it. How about that?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These observations took did not come out of thin air.
.

Well I will agree that it wasn't thin air that Lessans pulled these observations out of.

[thedoc]

]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

it doesn't prove that Lessans was wrong in any way, shape, or form.

And so far there has been nothing to prove Lessans right either, which leaves us with no proof, but a lot of undeniable proof that what Lessans was wrong. Whether they are efferent or afferent I think your eyes must be failing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say I think you are a stupid moron. Learn to read.

I said, clearly, you are making yourself look stupid by claiming you don't understand a simple, undeniable fact. I do not think for one second you don't understand, I think you are pretending to because the actual fact refutes Lessans ideas. You are dissembling like the best evangelists.

"Looking like the stupidest of morons" is as close as you can get to saying "I am a stupid moron" LadyShea. You call this a simple, undeniable fact, but if it is not true, it is neither simple or undeniable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Of course it doesn't disprove anything. However, until you can come up with something, the concept of efferent vision is not worth studying. No one will perform the empirical studies you think will confirm efferent vision until you find a problem with the current theory that is explained better by Lessans' ideas.

I'm so confident that Lessans' ideas will never unseat the current theory that I'm telling you exactly how you could achieve it. How about that?

Finding a problem with the current theory probably won't unseat it either. The only way that this theory will be unseated is if there is compelling evidence that it's wrong, and that will take a lot of empirical testing.

[LadyShea]

It is absolutely true, and it is simple, and it is an undeniable fact that seeing is acquiring information about the object being seen. That is the very definition of seeing.

Of course neither you nor Lessans care one whit about the accepted meaning of various words since you freely change them to suit you at will.

[LadyShea]

"Looking like the stupidest of morons" is as close as you can get to saying "I am a stupid moron" LadyShea.

Nope, not even the same. One can look like an idiot without being an idiot.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Finding a problem with the current theory probably won't unseat it either. The only way that this theory will be unseated is if there is compelling evidence that it's wrong, and that will take a lot of empirical testing.

Finding a problem with the current theory is compelling evidence that it's wrong.

No one is going to be interested in testing unless you give them a compelling reason, and you can't get them a compelling reason until someone does some testing for you? Then you're good and royally fucked, now aren't you?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Finding a problem with the current theory probably won't unseat it either. The only way that this theory will be unseated is if there is compelling evidence that it's wrong, and that will take a lot of empirical testing.

Finding a problem is the first required step. Without a problem, nobody will search for a solution. Get it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is absolutely true, and it is simple, and it is an undeniable fact that seeing is acquiring information about the object being seen. That is the very definition of seeing.

Of course neither you nor Lessans care one whit about the accepted meaning of various words since you freely change them to suit you at will.

It's very easy to set up a semantic argument without any real substance. Just like Lessans said, definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned. Seeing is not acquiring information unless the brain is capable of interpreting what it sees.

That's why people don't like the accurate definition of determinism that Lessans put forth. Philosophers don't like admitting that they may be wrong about certain things, so they try to accuse him of making up a definition that suits him, which is not the case.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Finding a problem is the first required step. Without a problem, nobody will search for a solution. Get it?

Going round full circle. More than 150 pages ago I explained that she had a non-existent solution to a non-existent problem. That's what this whole thread has been about. It's like Alice in Wonderland.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's very easy to set up a semantic argument without any real substance. Just like Lessans said, definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned. Seeing is not acquiring information unless the brain is capable of interpreting what it sees.

So a camera is not acquiring information (like you know the visible properties) about the object it is photographing because it doesn't have a brain? What about animals with eyes or eye spots but no brain (like some sea creatures) can they not see...are they not acquiring information from the outside world through their eyes?

If you actually believe this, rather than dissembling purposefully, you are a moron.

And we can neither discuss nor understand anything if language has no meaning. It's not always perfect, but it's all we have.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Finding a problem is the first required step. Without a problem, nobody will search for a solution. Get it?

The problem that Lessans saw with the afferent model of sight was in reference to how the brain is able to project words onto reality which leads to conditioning. He clearly showed that the brain could not become conditioned this way, if the eyes were a sense organ. No other sense organ is able to do that. That's his proof right there. The examples given to try to refute him by showing that the other senses can become conditioned were not accurate.

[LadyShea]

We have already pointed put the brain is perfectly capable of doing what Lessans' describes as conditioning within the current model of vision. No efferent vision is required to explain it. He didn't come close to proving that it isn't possible if eyes are a sense organ.

So, still no problem to be solved.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is absolutely true, and it is simple, and it is an undeniable fact that seeing is acquiring information about the object being seen. That is the very definition of seeing.

Of course neither you nor Lessans care one whit about the accepted meaning of various words since you freely change them to suit you at will.

It's very easy to set up a semantic argument without any real substance. Just like Lessans said, definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned. Seeing is not acquiring information unless the brain is capable of interpreting what it sees.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So a camera is not acquiring information (like you know the visible properties) about the object it is photographing because it doesn't have a brain? What about animals with eyes or eye spots but no brain (like some sea creatures) can they not see...are they not acquiring information from the outside world through their eyes?

Maybe they have protective reflexes. If you call that acquiring information, then I would have to agree, but that has nothing to do with seeing afferently. It all boils down to the definition.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you actually believe this, rather than dissembling purposefully, you are a moron.

What are you talking about? People get caught up in logical arguments all the time that are far from sound, but appear to be. It's too easy to make something appear what it isn't. I know you're thinking that's what I'm doing; but that's what you're doing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And we can neither discuss nor understand anything if language has no meaning. It's not always perfect, but it's all we have.

Language has flaws. Logic can be flawed. That's why he wrote the following because logic can appear well supported, but be wrong.

Now let me make something very clear. To teach that 2+2=4
doesn’t depend for its truth on who is doing the teaching because the
one being taught can perceive this undeniable relation, but when the
relation revealing any truth is not obvious or difficult to grasp, or
fallaciously logical, or logically inaccurate, then its acceptance depends
more on who is doing the teaching and the long tenure of its existence
rather than on what is being taught. For example, if students, who
cannot perceive undeniable relations, are taught by their professor
that 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 9 because he also cannot perceive this is false,
they will be compelled to reject your explanation of it being 8 because
they compare the rank of the teacher and the long tenure of what is
taught with your upstart disagreement. Who are you to disagree with
these distinguished professors? Everywhere you look people are using
fallacious standards to judge the truth.

<snip>

To overcome this stubborn resistance and bring about this new
world, it is imperative that the knowledge in this book be adequately
understood which requires that the reader does not apply himself and
his ideas as a standard of what is true and false, but that he
understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an
opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused
with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away
the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the
years.