A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't be serious, can you?

I spend way too much of my real life being serious, thankee very much! But hey lol wtf, I'll play along.

1. Did Lessans actually write that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the human eye, or was that you?

2. If Lessans wrote the material in question, was he serious or was he just having a bit of fun at the expense of future readers (not that there's anything wrong with that )?

3. If Lessans wrote the material and was serious, on what did he base the assertion that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the human eye? Please be specific.

4. If Lessans wrote the material in question and was serious, was he factually correct in asserting there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the human eye?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are that positive that you're right, then let's end it. I don't believe you are, but we can agree to disagree.

You said Lessans was open to having his ideas tested and if proven wrong you would admit he was wrong. Here is an empirical test based on his own example and his idea fails the test repeatedly and consistently. You cannot even try to refute it.

But, your faith won't let you admit he was wrong, and of course you want to end it and chalk it up to a "disagreement", because that's what True Believers do.

You're not special, you're just a Scientologist or Moony with a different set of dogma and you'll happily lie and weasel to keep your faith.

If Lessans was as humble and honest as you claim he was, he would probably be ashamed of your dishonesty.

[thedoc]

Does Waco Tx. have a forum for Peacegirl to post on? And what kind of wood is that post made of? Can 'Loco weed' grow into a tree?

[Vivisectus]

Loco weed (datura stramonium) is an annual, so no on that one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I spend way too much of my real life being serious, thankee very much! But hey lol wtf, I'll play along.

1. Did Lessans actually write that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the human eye, or was that you?

2. If Lessans wrote the material in question, was he serious or was he just having a bit of fun at the expense of future readers (not that there's anything wrong with that )?

3. If Lessans wrote the material and was serious, on what did he base the assertion that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the human eye? Please be specific.

4. If Lessans wrote the material in question and was serious, was he factually correct in asserting there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the human eye?

Yes, this is what he wrote. Obviously there are impulses that connect the external world to the internal world through the optic nerve, but before passing judgment, try to understand what he's saying. I think you are so caught up in accusing him and keeping up the pretense that he doesn't know what he's talking about, that you have lost all objectivity. That goes for everyone in here.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 118-119

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain.

The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said Lessans was open to having his ideas tested and if proven wrong you would admit he was wrong. Here is an empirical test based on his own example and his idea fails the test repeatedly and consistently. You cannot even try to refute it.

But, your faith won't let you admit he was wrong, and of course you want to end it and chalk it up to a "disagreement", because that's what True Believers do.

You're not special, you're just a Scientologist or Moony with a different set of dogma and you'll happily lie and weasel to keep your faith.

If Lessans was as humble and honest as you claim he was, he would probably be ashamed of your dishonesty.

But don't you see what you're doing LadyShea, or are you blind at this point to anything that I might offer in support of this discovery? You have set up a condition where Lessans can't win. Your first premise is an assumption that he must be wrong, and I believe in him due to faith only. Therefore, if I disagree it's only because I'm a True Believer. Your conclusion sounds valid, but not if your premise is false, which it is, therefore your conclusion is total bollocks.

[LadyShea]

Lessans made a prediction using a non observable, non testable hypothetical.
That hypothetical has a direct, empirically observable counterpart in reality.
The prediction fails when applied to reality.

You refuse to acknowledge this failure of his idea in reality. You refuse to accept reality.

Lessans was wrong about real time seeing. It's been proven to you.

SO other than faith in your father and dishonesty, what could possibly lead to your refusal to accept this positive proof?

[Dragar]

Lessans could easily 'win'.

If NASA launched rockets using planet's apparent positions instead of their corrected positions due to our delayed seeing of them, Lessans would 'win'.

If we saw a supernovae but did not receive the light or neutrinos from it, at the same time as seeing the explosion, Lessans would 'win'.

If the moons of Jupiter did not display a difference in their appearance perfectly explained by delayed time seeing, but incompatible with instantaneous seeing, Lessans would 'win'.

But he doesn't. Every single time, Lessans 'loses'.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain.

Well here is a good 'cow-patty'. Sight takes place when the child opens it's eyes. Vision is independent of the other senses and takes place even if the other senses are not functioning. Lessans simply didn't understand anything about vision and how the body functions, so he made stuff up to poke fun at everyone. Anything as ridiculous as his book could only be a joke.

Here is proof that science has gotten it wrong, basicly backwards, about how light moves. One detail wrong? Maybe all details wrong? Since light and dark are opposites, and dark is afferent then light must be efferent,

http://www.zerobeat.net/qrp/darktheory.html

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, this is what he wrote. Obviously there are impulses that connect the external world to the internal world through the optic nerve...

So then you agree that what Lessans wrote was, in this instance, obviously wrong. Correct?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But don't you see what you're doing LadyShea, or are you blind at this point to anything that I might offer in support of this discovery?

You haven't offered anything in support of his non-discoveries.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have set up a condition where Lessans can't win.

That wasn't LadyShea. It was reality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your first premise is an assumption that he must be wrong, and I believe in him due to faith only.

Wrong again. That is not a premise but a conclusion, validly inferred from accurate and astute observations of your own behavior.

You are ill, Peacegirl. The best thing you can do is leave here and seek professional help, or at least find a new and less self-destructive hobby.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans made a prediction using a non observable, non testable hypothetical.
That hypothetical has a direct, empirically observable counterpart in reality.
The prediction fails when applied to reality.

You refuse to acknowledge this failure of his idea in reality. You refuse to accept reality.

Lessans was wrong about real time seeing. It's been proven to you.

SO other than faith in your father and dishonesty, what could possibly lead to your refusal to accept this positive proof?

Lady Shea, how many times must you dance around a dead horse before you figure out it is dead? The smell alone, at this point, should give it away.

peacegirl is not refusing, she is insane.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl is not refusing, she is insane.

NA is correct, Peacegirl is not refusing to accept reality, what she post's IS her reality. We can see that this does not coincide with what we can confirm, but Peacegirl is incapable of seeing what is real and can only see what is written in the book. To be real to Peacegirl everything must be twisted and corrupted to fit what is in the book, no exceptions, and this includes the contributers on this thread who must be misrepresented to fit the predictions of lessans. She will project what Lessans had written onto everyone here unless we accept the book without question. Questions and disagreement are indicators of a lack of comprehension, just as Lessans had predicted. 'The world according to Lessans/Peacegirl'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans made a prediction using a non observable, non testable hypothetical.
That hypothetical has a direct, empirically observable counterpart in reality.
The prediction fails when applied to reality.

Absolutely not true. You are using outer space to determine what is true and what isn't, and there is a huge room for error. You don't want to believe it, so your reasoning is contaminated even though you believe that neutrinos traveling with photons proves that we see in delayed time. Wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You refuse to acknowledge this failure of his idea in reality. You refuse to accept reality.

Lessans was wrong about real time seeing. It's been proven to you.

SO other than faith in your father and dishonesty, what could possibly lead to your refusal to accept this positive proof?

Then stop talking to me LadyShea, okay? You are right in your mind, and I'm wrong, and you believe you have proof to substantiate that. I dispute your proof, so move on. I've asked you to do this before, and I have no idea why you keep coming back. Are you trying to prove that I'm wrong, so you can feel more right? I believe that's the reason you're here, and as long as you don't want to understand Lessans' side of things, you will continue to think I'm a believer. I am not interested in your failed attempts to make me the centerpiece of this thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Loco weed (datura stramonium) is an annual, so no on that one.

Interesting, Peacegirl's memory is a bit like an annual, except with a much shorter cycle.

And she has the same effect on people, she drives them crazy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Lady Shea, how many times must you dance around a dead horse before you figure out it is dead? The smell alone, at this point, should give it away.

peacegirl is not refusing, she is insane.

Have you been checked out NA? I'm being serious. I'm not just responding in anger at the false accusations. I am really concerned about you. I think you are projecting your head problems onto me because you can't accept that you are acting like a savant. You can't stop repeating yourself. I hope people go back and count how many posts this guy has said the same thing. It's not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't offered anything in support of his non-discoveries.

How can you know that when you haven't listened to his proof? You have done no such thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have set up a condition where Lessans can't win.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That wasn't LadyShea. It was reality.

All this response means is that you're not the one to help spread this knowledge. It means nothing more than that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your first premise is an assumption that he must be wrong, and I believe in him due to faith only.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wrong again. That is not a premise but a conclusion, validly inferred from accurate and astute observations of your own behavior.

You actually believe that you have the answers to my motivations. Believe what you want Spacemonkey. What saddens me is the display of unimaginable ignorance on your part. The person I thought you were is past history. I'll move on to someone who is more receptive to new ideas.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are ill, Peacegirl. The best thing you can do is leave here and seek professional help, or at least find a new and less self-destructive hobby.

It's so easy to diagnose me as being the problem. It gets you off the hook from even trying to understand this knowledge. I think underneath it all you are afraid of being wrong. You have a major ego problem. It's my turn to be Freud for a change.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not interested in your failed attempts to make me the centerpiece of this thread.

Yes LadyShea, stop trying to shift all the blame onto Peacegirl, Remember what a big favor she's doing for us.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't stop repeating yourself. I hope people go back and count how many posts this guy has said the same thing. It's not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

Wow, This could go in the dictionary under "The pot calling the kettle black". Except that NA has at least some grip on reality.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have set up a condition where Lessans can't win.

Bullshit, you liar. We are ACCEPTING his conditions, and then testing them against reality, to see if they are accurate. They aren't. It's very simple indeed.

The supernova is a simple test. HIS CONDITIONS predict that we would see the light of the nova in real time, but then have to wait for the photons and neutrinos to arrive at the earth. If the nova were 500 light years distant, then we should have to wait 500 years for the photons and neutrinos to arrive after first seeing the light. Those are HIS CLAIMS, HIS FUCKING CONDITIONS AND PREMISES. NOT OURS.

So we test his claim against an actual supernova. And lo and behold he's wrong.

The light of the nova arrives concurrently with the photons and neutrinos, which means we are seeing the nova as it was 500 years in the past.

No presmises by us. No assumptions. No prior conclusion that Lessans must be wrong. Just a simple test of reality REALITY proves he is wrong.

It's YOUR CLAIM, in this very thread, that if we shined a laser at the moon we would see it in 1.25 seconds. That's what YOU SAID. So we test YOUR CONDITIONS, YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, AND YOUR PREMISES, against reality, and it turns out that you and Lessans are wrong.

[LadyShea]

Absolutely not true. You are using outer space to determine what is true and what isn't, and there is a huge room for error.

Lessans supported his claims of truth using a hypothetical regarding the Sun. The Sun is a star in space, which exists in the Universe. Anything that holds true for the Sun must hold true for all stars.

Lessans said if the star known as the Sun was suddenly turned on at noon, we would see it at noon, but that we must wait ~8.5 minutes for the photons to arrive on Earth because they had to travel the distance.

Stars exist and we can see them. Sometimes those stars explode in a supernova and we can see that. The supernova is directly analogous to the Sun being turned on at noon because we have photos of the star before it went supernova.

The hypothetical has an exact counterpart in reality. If his hypothetical was correct, then we could see the star go supernova immediately as it happened, but have to await the arrival of the photons and neutrinos produced by the supernova after they traveled the distance.

Outer space is part of the Universe, what's true is true universally. Lessans knew this or he wouldn't have used "outer space" examples himself. But he did use examples from space, he made claims about space. Several times.

You don't want to believe it, so your reasoning is contaminated

I used ONLY Lessans claims to test them against reality. It has nothing to do with my beliefs. I made no presuppositions. I took Lessans claims, applied them to their actual counterpart, and Lessans claims fail when applied to reality.

even though you believe that neutrinos traveling with photons proves that we see in delayed time.

"Neutrinos traveling with photons" has nothing to do with the proof presented to you.

You can remove the neutrinos from the observation completely and it would still hold for the photons.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Have you been checked out NA? I'm being serious. I'm not just responding in anger at the false accusations. I am really concerned about you. I think you are projecting your head problems onto me because you can't accept that you are acting like a savant. You can't stop repeating yourself. I hope people go back and count how many posts this guy has said the same thing. It's not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

peacegirl, I know you don't remember this because of your illness, but I have offered several times now to go with you to a mental health professional. The offer still stands.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then stop talking to me LadyShea, okay?

No

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are right in your mind, and I'm wrong, and you believe you have proof to substantiate that

I offered you the proof laid out clearly and simply. Can you refute it with counter-evidence or facts? Do you have a counter-example to offer? Can you refute it with logic?

Since you are only denying it rather than refuting it using evidence, facts, logic, or counter-examples, then the only reason I can think that is left is a faith based belief.

There is nothing wrong with that at all, but admit that it is belief only.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I dispute your proof, so move on.

You deny the proof based on your faith.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've asked you to do this before, and I have no idea why you keep coming back.

Because I want to

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you trying to prove that I'm wrong, so you can feel more right?

I am trying to prove you wrong because you are wrong, and because you came here to try to convince us of something, and that something is wrong.

Remember it's about you because you came here to share this stuff. You weren't sought out, you're not an invited lecturer, you weren't made any promises regarding how you would be received or discussed with. You came here, you shared your stuff, and invited discussion. Well, I am here to discuss. I have been discussing. You don't like it, then stop responding to me. Stop logging in to whatever you want to do to end the discussion you started and invited.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not interested in your failed attempts to make me the centerpiece of this thread.

It's your doing and your responsibility that you are the centerpiece of this thread. You created it and you keep posting in it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No

I offered you the proof laid out clearly and simply. Can you refute it with counter-evidence or facts? Do you have a counter-example to offer? Can you refute it with logic?

Since you are only denying it rather than refuting it using evidence, facts, logic, or counter-examples, then the only reason I can think that is left is a faith based belief.

There is nothing wrong with that at all, but admit that it is belief only.

You deny the proof based on your faith.

Because I want to

I am trying to prove you wrong because you are wrong, and because you came here to try to convince us of something, and that something is wrong.

Remember it's about you because you came here to share this stuff. You weren't sought out, you're not an invited lecturer, you weren't made any promises regarding how you would be received or discussed with. You came here, you shared your stuff, and invited discussion. Well, I am here to discuss. I have been discussing. You don't like it, then stop responding to me. Stop logging in to whatever you want to do to end the discussion you started and invited.

It's your doing and your responsibility that you are here.

Lady Shea, at this point in the thread, what in the world makes you think peacegirls behavior is best accounted for by faith?

[LadyShea]

Lady Shea, at this point in the thread, what in the world makes you think peacegirls behavior is best accounted for by faith?

Some consider zealotry a form of mental illness, and maybe it is. As long as peacegirl is rational enough to express her thoughts I will engage her as a sane person.