A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you were sane then you would just do as I suggested, and post the relevant paragraphs where he allegedly supports his presuppositions about conscience. If you were sane you would be able to recognize that he does not support them, and that you have accepted them on faith alone. The unanswered questions which will follow upon any further unrequested copypasting will be mine.

I think that making such a big deal about copy and pasting a few pages (literally) is scaring you so terribly is testament that there is something else going on. What are you afraid of Spacemonkey? That you could be wrong? That's probably IT.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop it LadyShea. He knew exactly what light is, and made an accurate observation. The fact that he said the photons (or molecules) of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun indicates that he knew light doesn't get here and park, as you falsely interpreted his words to mean.

Originally Posted by angukukky

X remains here simply means that the X which is here now is the same X that was here previously. That is what "remains here" means. Therefore, when Lessans states that "[o]nce the light is here it remains here" the clear implication is that the light which is here now is the very same light that was here on some previous occasion. If the light which is here now is new light then it is not light which has "remained".

Again, when Lessans states that "these photons are already present" he is clearly referring to those photons which were present on the other side of the Earth when the Sun was shining on that side of the Earth.

The inescapable conclusion is that Lessans believed that once light arrives at a particular location it remains at that location. As has been repeatedly explained to you, this is simply incorrect.

If we are to believe that by the statement "photons of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us" Lessans meant to say that the Earth is the recipient of a constant stream of new photons from the Sun then he cannot be correct when he states that "[o]nce the light is here it remains here" or that "these photons are already present". The phrase "photons of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us" either refers to some phenomenon other than that of the Earth being the recipient of of a constant stream of new photons from the Sun or Lessans is contradicting himself in that single paragraph.

Angukuk's explanation is exactly how I read Lessans words, and how any person with an adult level of reading comprehension will read it.

He worded this paragraph in a way that makes it seem he was completely ignorant of what light is and how it works, the most glaring example was his original choice of the word molecule which is completely wrong in this context (as wrong as calling a sod house a brick house). So is he ignorant, or is he a terrible writer that can't get his point across clearly?.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it will convince everyone how determined you are to hold onto a dated worldview for fear that you will lose your entire identity. But you have nothing to fear because the truth is always better than lies.

The truth is always better than lies, which is why everyone is so frustrated with your inability to see that Lessans was wrong about vision.

I'm sorry peacegirl, no one here is interested in Lessans' work, except as a source of black humor. The only interest left to people ITT is figuring out some way to make you see what's wrong with his work, or amusement at your inability to comprehend.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, light comes from the sun and light is finite, but I'm trying to tell you that this has absolutely nothing to do with efferent vision, and how the brain actually works. Therefore, all of your effort to prove Lessans wrong is false because you're coming from a false premise.

What do you mean light is finite?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the variables of the test are controlled such that there can be no statistically significant errors, or bias.

There can be no statistically significant errors found in the Moons of Jupiter observation, and since anyone with a watch and a telescope can replicate the observation for themselves, no bias involved.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes you did. Liar. Right here:

Pants on fire.

And I'm asking you questions designed to establish how this is possible and why they could never be different. You are not answering those questions. You are instead lying to me about not having said what you've said, and not having changed your answers when you have.

Light sensitive film cannot chemically react with light that isn't there at the camera. This is a fact. And any light actually present at the camera travelled to get there, and therefore has a travel time.

You don't see the problem. You don't comprehend what you are replying to or even what you are saying. And I don't need to investigate further to know that what you are presently saying is insanely wrong.

I already told you that the way the question was phrased made it difficult for me to know exactly what you were asking. Don't call me a liar Spacemonkey, or the jig is up, and it will be your loss. I'm not going to put up with someone who is calling me names and yet wanting to hear my reasoning. I can ignore NA and thedoc, but not someone who I am in directly conversation with.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The point you were replying to here concerned his account of vision. And there are mountains of disconfirming evidence on that. All of the things to keep trying to sweep away by suggesting that there might be some 'unknown factors' which would make possible some alternate explanation which you presently can't provide. Rejecting all of this present disconfirming evidence based only upon your faith in Lessans' allegedly astute powers of observation/revelation remains the opposite of reasonable and rational.

Not at all, if you understand anything regarding how the brain is able to project words onto reality that have no correspondence to reality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep bringing up the fact that no one but me and Lessans find these principles plausible when this book has not been thoroughly studied by anyone (especially in these philosophy forums) because it was never distributed? And please don't tell me that you have thoroughly studied this work which requires one to read it from beginning to end, in the right order, at least twice. That's what it will take to fully understand why his observations were valid and sound.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

People at pretty much every forum have read enough to identify these same presuppositions about conscience which Lessans' nowhere supports.

I could care less what people on other forums (who had a small amount of time to hear my reasoning which amounted to nothing) thought about this discovery. How can you base anything on what other people thought? I thought you were a scientist, but obviously you're not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And no-one but you has ever found them plausible.

I wouldn't expect them to. They are coming from a free will position. How can they even begin to understand the depth of this knowledge when they refuse to follow his reasoning since they have already concluded he is wrong before they even begin?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Therefore no-one has any reason to believe his account of conscience. (And I can't read his book in its entirety when you refuse to share his super secret final chapter. But I've read enough to understand him better than you, as evidenced by your incorrect belief that he supported the presuppositions I listed for you. You still think he said something he didn't. I know you're wrong because I read it.)

If you read it, you need to read it again because you're refutations add up to zilch. And I mean that sincerely.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you were sane then you would just do as I suggested, and post the relevant paragraphs where he allegedly supports his presuppositions about conscience. If you were sane you would be able to recognize that he does not support them, and that you have accepted them on faith alone. The unanswered questions which will follow upon any further unrequested copypasting will be mine.

You won't have to come up with any unanswered questions which follow upon any further unrequested copypasting because I'm not going to copy-paste under these conditions. You wouldn't understand the reasoning even if you tried because your preset beliefs that Lessans is wrong will reinforce what you are aiming to see, and you won't begin to understand why his observations are accurate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light is not 'matter' in the sense that the building blocks of all 'matter' are molecules, so your point is moot.

What word he used has no bearing on what he was trying to explain. So your point is moot.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course not. I'm discounting his non-discovery because efferent vision is refuted by mountains of evidence for which you can offer no alternative explanation, and it is not even a coherent possibility as evidenced by your own inconsistent answers to very simple questions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here I was simply pointing out that you don't have to be a physicist to know that light does not consist of molecules.

Don't come off as an innocent bystander that didn't partake in compromising this knowledge. You were trying to make fun of him, just like everyone else. You are no different than the religious folk you criticize because your reasoning is flawed. Mark my words, Lessans will have the last laugh, although posthumously.

And I was pointing out that I don't think the fact that he used the word "molecules" (even as a non-physicist) which you're trying to discredit him on, indicates that his discovery is invalid.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one is claiming that. You claimed his not being a physicist explains this error. I'm pointing out that it doesn't. This isn't evidence that his non-discovery is invalid. It's just evidence that he was an ignorant boob who didn't know his ass from his elbow.

And you're the most unscientific person I know. The fact that you call this a non-discovery before you even understand whether his concepts are valid or not indicate to me that your bias is too one-sided for you to analyze this work objectively.

[LadyShea]

I already told you that the way the question was phrased made it difficult for me to know exactly what you were asking

What is the difficult part?

Can light interact with film if there is no light in contact with the film?

Can you wash your hands in water if there is no water in contact with your hands?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And if that were true the sky would be uniformly bright white with the light of all the trillions of stars in every conceivable direction that we could see without the need to wait for the light to travel the distance.

This is a star cluster. If light and time had no bearing on what we see, the whole sky would look like the very center of this cluster.

In older and lower resolution photographs of this same cluster (Globular Cluster M13 should you happen to want to research it) you can't even resolve individual stars.

With 8- and 10-inch instruments the size of the cluster swells a bit, and the clarity of individual stars closer to the center increases. Nevertheless, resolving the bright core into stars is nearly impossible. Careful observers with 6-inch or larger instruments might also notice dark patches against the disk of the cluster. The cause is probably intervening interstellar matter.

After studying M13 through your telescope, imagine now the sky as from deep within the cluster. We would see uncountable numbers of blazing stars, many as bright or brighter than our naked eye planets. Inhabitants on a planet inside M13 would probably know nothing of the Galaxy and other galaxies, as their view would be completely blocked by the brilliance of their own skies. To them, the Great Cluster in Hercules would be "the Universe".M13 - Globular Cluster in Hercules

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the difficult part?

Can light interact with film if there is no light in contact with the film?

Can you wash your hands in water if there is no water in contact with your hands?

But there is contact at the film when the object is in range. That's why Lessans said we would be able to see the Sun if it exploded instantly, but it would take 8.3 minutes to get to Earth where we would be able to see each other. You are not viewing this correctly because you are thinking in terms of afferent vision, and I don't know how else to explain this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And how will you be able to tell the difference between there really being no statistically significant errors or bias affecting the results, and there being no statistically significant errors or bias affecting the results that you can identify or detect (which is where you are now)?

Why are you turning this into something I contrived Spacemonkey? A test with good controls is statistically significant but the tests I have seen have not been reliable [in my opinion]. A statistically significant test would not have any underlying bias which could easily interfere with the validity of the results in order to prove the original hypothesis [or theory] true. I'm not saying this is done purposely, but it's very tempting to misread the results of a test you want to be true. We can't avoid all bias, so we have to be vigilant in our effort to remove as much bias as we can. This means setting up the experiment in such a way that it doesn't lean toward the results we are hoping for.

[LadyShea]

What is in contact with the film and what does "in range" visually have to do with physical contact between two things?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why Lessans said we would be able to see the Sun if it exploded instantly, but it would take 8.3 minutes to get to Earth where we would be able to see each other. You are not viewing this correctly because you are thinking in terms of afferent vision, and I don't know how else to explain this.

This has nothing to do with afferent vision. This has to do with the chemical interaction resulting from physical contact between film and light as is necessary for photography.

Neither Lessans statements nor yours seem to explain how efferent vision is compatible with how film works in reality. We are trying to see if his idea is even possible given the reality of the various examples. In this case, how images are created by film cameras.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No, 'out of range' means that the object is not visable, the speed of light has nothing to do with a blurred image, that is just nonsense. you are the only one bringing a blurred image into the thread.

So then what did you mean? You were the one that mentioned blurry images. I guess you were talking about the shutter speed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here are your responses to whether or not the light at the camera (when the photograph is taken) previously travelled to get there. (And this is just from the present thread. You went through the exact same flip-flopping inconsistency in the last thread too.)

Did the light present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken previously travel from the object to get there?

But of course you're totally consistent, right? Consistently contradicting yourself. But of course this is all my fault, right? I ask you Peacegirl, in all honesty, is the above really the sign of a healthy and functioning sane mind?

I was trying to make logical sense of this knowledge using the afferent model, which was a catastrophic failure. That's why my answers appeared inconsistent. It's like trying to fit a key into a lock that won't fit because it's not the right key. To come from a position of afferent vision and try to fit an afferent key into an efferent lock (so to speak) is going to do you no good. If efferent vision is true, the light at the film or retina is instantaneous because the object is in range which meets the necessary conditions of sight; the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen. This ability to see in the present has nothing to do with the speed of light or GPS systems failing to work.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So then what did you mean? You were the one that mentioned blurry images. I guess you were talking about the shutter speed.

No he never said anything about blurry images, you somehow came up with that from a post of Vivisectus'...see your bolded sentence in the first quote above" so fast that we would get a blur or nothing at all"

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not interested in the answers to my claim that you confused me on. Stop right now Spacemonkey, or I will put you on ignore for false accusations.

You want me to stop posting the questions that you are ignoring, otherwise...

...you'll ignore them?

Sorry, but no. I will keep posting these questions until you stop being so dishonest and avoidant, and actually try to answer them. If you can't answer them consistently then efferent vision is impossible.

[LadyShea]

I was trying to make logical sense of this knowledge using the afferent model, which was a catastrophic failure. That's why my answers appeared inconsistent. It's like trying to fit a key into a lock that won't fit because it's not the right key. To come from a position of afferent vision and try to fit an afferent key into an efferent lock (so to speak) is going to do you no good. If efferent vision is true, the light at the film or retina is instantaneous because the object is in range which meets the necessary conditions of sight; the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen.

You are trying to get efferent vision to fit with observed reality as in actual examples like photography.

If efferent vision is true, you should be able to explain how something we have been doing for over a century, taking pictures, actually works within the framework of efferent vision. That you flail around flip flopping just shows that efferent vision has no explanatory power...afferent vision isn't even in the mix when it comes to you explaining efferent vision and photography.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This ability to see in the present has nothing to do with the speed of light or GPS systems failing to work.

Whether it is possible to see instantly has everything to do with any technology or observation that relies on the theories of Relativity and/or Causality

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, light comes from the sun and light is finite, but I'm trying to tell you that this has absolutely nothing to do with efferent vision, and how the brain actually works. Therefore, all of your effort to prove Lessans wrong is false because you're coming from a false premise.

Once again, this post had nothing to do with proving Lessans wrong. I was simply pointing out that you had posted an empty tautology as if it meant something. It shows only that you don't understand what you are saying. If you think otherwise, then please explain the importance of telling us that all sunlight is in fact sunlight.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think that making such a big deal about copy and pasting a few pages (literally) is scaring you so terribly is testament that there is something else going on. What are you afraid of Spacemonkey? That you could be wrong? That's probably IT.

No-one is afraid. You are free to copypaste all you want. The point is that it is your mental illness rather than any logical or explanatory requirement compelling you to try to post entire chapters. Doing so is neither sufficient nor necessary for showing me where you think he supports the presuppositions I listed. Why are you so afraid of just doing as I suggested, by reading through the chapter yourself, and then posting those specific paragraphs where you think he is offering support for the things I have listed as presuppositions? Is it because you know you won't be able to find any such passages?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that the way the question was phrased made it difficult for me to know exactly what you were asking. Don't call me a liar Spacemonkey, or the jig is up, and it will be your loss. I'm not going to put up with someone who is calling me names and yet wanting to hear my reasoning. I can ignore NA and thedoc, but not someone who I am in directly conversation with.

Don't be ridiculous. The questions were so simple a five-year old could understand them. And they are the same questions you danced around for weeks in the other thread before I even posted them here in this one. What is your excuse for still not being able to answer them? Do you still not understand them?

And if you don't want to be called a liar, then stop lying! Stop saying you never changed your answers when I can quote you doing so! Stop denying that you ever said or agreed to things when I can quote you doing exactly that! Or, when I show you doing so, just admit you were wrong! Why is it so hard for you to be honest in this way?

And I would love to hear your reasoning! Specifically, I would like to hear your reasoning concerning how cameras can take photographs using light sensitive film and lenses even when there is no light at all at the camera. If you don't think they can then please say so, and explain your reasoning for saying they could. I would also like to hear your reasoning concerning what interacts with the film at the camera, and how whatever it is that does so got there.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am as rational and sane as you are.

L.O.L. are you sure that is a comparison you really want to make?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all, if you understand anything regarding how the brain is able to project words onto reality that have no correspondence to reality.

That values can be projected is not in dispute. Trying to use Lessans' assertions about exactly how this happens as support for efferent vision fails, because to the extent that his account requires efferent vision, that account is also thereby in conflict with the same mountains of disconfirming evidence you are irrationally sweeping under the rug. Rejecting all of this based only upon your faith in Lessans' allegedly astute powers of observation/revelation remains the opposite of reasonable and rational.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I could care less what people on other forums (who had a small amount of time to hear my reasoning which amounted to nothing) thought about this discovery. How can you base anything on what other people thought? I thought you were a scientist, but obviously you're not.

My point was not that he was wrong because of this universal disagreement over his premises and presuppositions. My point is rather that this shows him to have been a poor reasoner. A competent reasoner does not begin arguments from premises that no-one will be likely to accept. An astute observer of human nature would have some clue as to what premises people will be likely to accept, and what premises people will require some kind of support for. Lessans obviously did not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wouldn't expect them to. They are coming from a free will position. How can they even begin to understand the depth of this knowledge when they refuse to follow his reasoning since they have already concluded he is wrong before they even begin?

I'm not saying that they concluded he was wrong before they began. I'm saying they followed his reasoning first, and then concluded he had not made his case because his arguments begin from what they consider to be implausible premises which he neglected to actually support. And you came at this first from a free will position too, right? So how is it that you were allegedly rationally convinced by arguments starting from premises which you wouldn't accept anyone else to accept? Why did you accept those premises when first evaluating this work? And why should anyone else?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you read it, you need to read it again because you're refutations add up to zilch. And I mean that sincerely.

Odd then that you're still running away from either showing me where he supported his presuppositions, or answering my questions about efferent vision and photography. You are mentally ill, and I mean that sincerely. We are all entirely sincere saying we hope you will eventually seek professional treatment. What you are doing is not healthy human behaviour. Where are your family? Why are they not helping you?

[Kael]

You know, I thought about bringing up Olbers' paradox and how it relates to claims of efferent and instant vision, but I figured it wouldn't have any more impact on peacegirl's intractable faith than anything else had so far.

Looks like I was right.