Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9351  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:24 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDCXV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
hopefully for good.
:laugh:
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
  #9352  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:25 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Don't be stupid. Response times in psychology are regularly accurately measured to within tens of milliseconds. There is nothing even remotely difficult about determining when a spot becomes visible. The difference between 1.25 and 2.5 seconds is huge and easily measurable. You don't have to stop and ask the person what they can see. The observer can be the one doing the timing.
I'd like to see an animation of this. I can't imagine this being possible, or accurate.
Better than an animation, try this:

Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9353  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:27 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

peacegirl is mentally ill and socially isolated by her own admission, and no one is doing her any good by pursuing this.
Reply With Quote
  #9354  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:28 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You can't do it, can you? You don't remember my previous answers, so you have no idea why they do not add up.
Whatever you say.
Am I wrong? Can you do it or not?
You've said so many things, I don't know what you are referring to. So repeat it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm at my computer and this is the only website I am interacting with. I guess I'm in need of socialization, if you want to call it that. It must be true that negative attention is better than no attention. I've given up on explaining the book, so I do ask myself why I'm here and that's what I came up with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So you are just here for the negative attention. We've been telling you that for some time now. And it is not at all healthy for you. The best thing you can do for yourself is to stop. Log off and don't come back. Get outside, go for a walk. Meet people, make some friends. Start a new hobby. Join a local photographic club. Take up yoga. Anything is better than persisting with this.
I do a lot of those things already, but my attention is focused on the book right now. You're right though, I should leave and I will shortly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If you do a lot of those things already then you are not in need of socialization as you claimed. And then your willingness to seek out and derive satisfaction from the negative attention you admit you are seeking here can no longer be explained by a lack of socialization. Why are you deliberately seeking out negative attention here if you can socialize positively elsewhere? It would seem that you are not seeking negative attention because it is all that you can get, but rather that you are deliberately seeking out negative attention for its own sake. And that is not healthy at all.
I don't get out that often, even though I do some of the things you mentioned. I never discuss the book outside of the internet, which makes this communication quite different although unfortunately it's turned into a circus. If I had another forum to go to, I would, but it's too exhausting to start from scratch again, even though the audience might be more receptive and open-minded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You never answered my question: If you are still here and posting a month from today, will we then be justified in saying that you are indeed insane?
No, that word doesn't even apply although if I'm here in a month from now, with the same type of discussion going on, you have my permission to come over and throw my computer out the window. :yup:
Reply With Quote
  #9355  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:30 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

peacegirl, you will be here a month from now, with the same type of discussion going on. In fact, since threads here are never locked, I predict, unfortunately, that you will be here for the rest of your life. And all to no purpose. You will never convince anyone that Lessans was right, because he was wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #9356  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:32 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
peacegirl is mentally ill and socially isolated by her own admission, and no one is doing her any good by pursuing this.
David, I thought you left already! What are you waiting for???? :doh:
Reply With Quote
  #9357  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:35 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Hallelujah!!!!!!! Good bye David! May we never meet again. :D

I think it is telling of her real nature that some one responds with some compassion and she reacts with hostility, however to be fair some of Davidm's post's have not been at all kind.
Reply With Quote
  #9358  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:40 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't get out that often, even though I do some of the things you mentioned. I never discuss the book outside of the internet, which makes this communication quite different although unfortunately it's turned into a circus.
My guess is that sometime in the past you have talked to friends and acquaintances about Lessans and you learned people's reaction to it. So you don't do it anymore because people do not usually shit in their own beds.

You somehow think the internet is anonymous and that nothing can be traced back to you but you have since learned better. People here know your name, the names of your family, where you live, where your family lives. You do not understand that what you are doing is not only mentally dangerous to you but can come back and hurt you and your family. You are being very reckless, selfish and thoughtless.

You understand that this conversation is going nowhere. You've known this for months, and yet you continue. I hope you will carefully examine what you have been doing, understand that you are being self destructive and get help.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-01-2012), Spacemonkey (05-01-2012), thedoc (05-01-2012)
  #9359  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:41 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
peacegirl is mentally ill and socially isolated by her own admission, and no one is doing her any good by pursuing this.
David, I thought you left already! What are you waiting for???? :doh:
I'm not going to debate your father's nonsense with you any longer. There is nothing to debate. His book is a load of sociopathic, scientifically illiterate, misogynistic, homophobic, self-aggrandizing crap. Your father was a bad man.

I feel what happened here is that this cruel man indoctrinated you with this horror show since childhood. And here you are, talking to a bunch of strangers on the Internet who think you are nuts, and this is your own self-described "socialization."

Just think about how sad that is, peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
  #9360  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:41 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Otherwise, according to Arthur C. Clarke anyway, our eyes could see radio light if they were several million times larger than they are.
No, that doesn't work. It's not just a matter of size. The radio waves won't trigger the chemicals in the retina, no matter how big the eyes are.
Reply With Quote
  #9361  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:48 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Otherwise, according to Arthur C. Clarke anyway, our eyes could see radio light if they were several million times larger than they are.
No, that doesn't work. It's not just a matter of size. The radio waves won't trigger the chemicals in the retina, no matter how big the eyes are.
But this assumes that the chemicals in eyes evolved to be millions of times our size would be the same chemicals in our eyes, or work in the same way. What is the justification for this? Are you saying that no evolved organism could see radio light? If not, why not?

Finally, an interesting discussion itt. :D A couple of points:

Animals right here on earth can see in ultraviolet and infrared. Should we suppose that no organisms anywhere could evolve to see in the rest of the spectrum? If not, why not?

Another fascinating idea is what colors would be seen in the other spectrums. Birds can see more colors than we can; what do those colors look like? :chin:

Someone alert The Lone Ranger to weigh in. :yup:
Reply With Quote
  #9362  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:50 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

When you get up into the higher energies most things become transparent.
Reply With Quote
  #9363  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:54 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
When you get up into the higher energies most things become transparent.
So at most of what we call the non-visible spectrum, no eyes could evolve because there could be no interactions between those wavelengths and the hypothetical eyes?
Reply With Quote
  #9364  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:15 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
When you get up into the higher energies most things become transparent.
So at most of what we call the non-visible spectrum, no eyes could evolve because there could be no interactions between those wavelengths and the hypothetical eyes?
Not all the non-visible, the high energy light. Biology is organic and when a high energy photon interacts with an organic molecule it is usually ionized.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-01-2012)
  #9365  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:24 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
When you get up into the higher energies most things become transparent.
So at most of what we call the non-visible spectrum, no eyes could evolve because there could be no interactions between those wavelengths and the hypothetical eyes?
Not all the non-visible, the high energy light. Biology is organic and when a high energy photon interacts with an organic molecule it is usually ionized.
Are there no conceivable arrangements of organic molecules that could successfully interact with high-energy light to produce sight?

I think animals with radio eyes would be very cool. :D
Reply With Quote
  #9366  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:41 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
When you get up into the higher energies most things become transparent.
So at most of what we call the non-visible spectrum, no eyes could evolve because there could be no interactions between those wavelengths and the hypothetical eyes?
Not all the non-visible, the high energy light. Biology is organic and when a high energy photon interacts with an organic molecule it is usually ionized.
Are there no conceivable arrangements of organic molecules that could successfully interact with high-energy light to produce sight?

I think animals with radio eyes would be very cool. :D
It is not inconceivable that a species could detect radio. Birds are thought to be able to detect magnetic fields. The higher energy light is a problem. Most of it is classified as hazardous radiation. Even UV in high enough flux is hazardous. It can sterilize. It's not inconceivable that a species might adapt to it, but it may not be organic in the way we know it.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (05-01-2012)
  #9367  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:44 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

See, now this thread has suddenly become interesting. :yup:
Reply With Quote
  #9368  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:45 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test

I averaged 262 milliseconds, and I am slow

No way could it take me a full second and quarter to click a button
Reply With Quote
  #9369  
Old 05-01-2012, 02:09 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Hey, peacegirl, did you miss this? :popcorn:


Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Hey, ass hat, why, when we send a radio transmission to Rovers on Mars, do we have to wait for the return message to come to us exactly in accord with the speed of light? Which means DELAYED, as in "delayed seeing." You do realize that the radio spectrum is LIGHT, yeah? Or no? If we had eyes as big as radio telescopes, we could SEE radio light.
Why do you keep going back to this when I am not disputing that radio waves travel, and I'm not disputing that light travels. What I am disputing is afferent vision, which means that the visible spectrum works with the brain and eyes differently. And if you call me this name one more time, just one, don't expect me to answer anymore of your stupid posts.
:lol:

You're not disputing that light travels! And so now let's go back to the supernova example.

According to YOU, if a star goes supernova, we would see that INSTANTLY, even if the star were 500 light years away! That is YOUR claim!

You also say that light travels, at a finite rate of speed, as well as neutrinos! Great!

This means, ACCORDING TO YOU, that if a star 500 light years away went supernova, we would see this RIGHT NOW on earth. But, ACCORDING TO YOU, we would have to wait 500 years for the photons and the neutrinos given off by the explosion to arrive on earth, since you are not disputing that photons travel, and travel at a finite rate of speed. Right?

So: you say that if a star 500 light years away went supernova, we would see it NOW on earth, but we would have to wait 500 years to register its photons and neutrinos.

IS THAT YOUR CLAIM, PEACEGIRL? YES OR NO?
I said there is a definite connection between the timing of neutrinos and photons, but the problem still exists as to how old these Supernova are, and whether we are seeing just an image from light, or whether we're seeing the real thing.

Doesn't matter how old it is. If the supernova was only one light year away (which would kill us all, but just for illustrative purposes), and, if we see in real time, then we would see the supernova 1 year earlier than we could detect the photons and neutrinos.

The further away the supernova, the longer the delay from visually seeing the supernova to when the photons and neutrinos could be detected.

You act like this is complicated. What part is confusing to you? What could you possibly mean by "the real thing"?

Last edited by LadyShea; 05-01-2012 at 02:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9370  
Old 05-01-2012, 02:44 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
I never discuss the book outside of the internet
Why on Earth not? If you believe it is the truth, and the answer to world peace, why don't you discuss it with those close to you?
Reply With Quote
  #9371  
Old 05-01-2012, 03:18 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

I propose we move the discussion to radio eyes and suchlike. :yup:
Reply With Quote
  #9372  
Old 05-01-2012, 04:24 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Do you own a watch or a clock, peacegirl? Do you mean to say you can't tell the difference between 1.25 seconds and 2.50 seconds?
I believe that her clock has been stopped for quite some time now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm not going to stay. To be the brunt of these unwarranted attacks is insane.
Indeed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Hey, peacegirl, how come when we send a radio (light) message to Rovers on Mars, we have to wait for the response instead of receiving it instantaneously?
Why are you talking about radio? Some people like to listen to AM and some people like to listen to FM. What does that prove? Personally, I like to listen to talk radio and oldies rock stations. What do you like to listen to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm at my computer and this is the only website I am interacting with. I guess I'm in need of socialization, if you want to call it that. It must be true that negative attention is better than no attention. I've given up on explaining the book, so I do ask myself why I'm here and that's what I came up with.
So, you really are here for the hunting.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #9373  
Old 05-01-2012, 04:27 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test

I averaged 262 milliseconds, and I am slow

No way could it take me a full second and quarter to click a button
216 milliseconds here, slowpoke.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #9374  
Old 05-01-2012, 04:30 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I propose we move the discussion to radio eyes and suchlike. :yup:
I believe that I read or heard once the eyes on Earth evolved to respond to the 'visible' part of the spectrum because that was the strongest part of the spectrum that reached the Earths surface. Perhaps eyes that evolve on other planets that receive different parts of the spectrum will respond the those parts of the spectrum. It would depend on where the eyes evolve to determine what is responded to.
Reply With Quote
  #9375  
Old 05-01-2012, 04:33 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
What do you like to listen to?
My CD player, I can load it with the music I like.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.75400 seconds with 14 queries