Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6626  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:20 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (01-27-2012), LadyShea (01-27-2012), Stephen Maturin (01-27-2012)
  #6627  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:24 PM
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:
A pinhole camera does not have an actual lens but it acts like a lens. And it also meets the requirements because the object is present. It's no different than a camera with an actual lens. Other than this, what camera does not have a lens, or what higher organism doesn't have a lens?
Camera film and photosensitive papers can interact with photons simply lying flat on a counter, or even in a canister or box, if someone accidentally exposes it to any light.

I had to learn to remove film from the small canister (that goes into the camera) and put it on a spindle and insert it into another light-tight canister in total darkness, not even a red light could be turned on for that step of the process, because the photons would have chemically reacted with the unprocessed film and ruined the pictures.

What do higher organisms have to do with anything? Do lower organisms not have efferent vision because they don't have lenses?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-27-2012)
  #6628  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:37 PM
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 Vivisectus View Post
So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!
You're just repeating the same refutation that does not hold up in reality Vivisectus, but you're hanging on for dear life. How many times do I have to say, for you to hear me, that Lessans' observations have nothing to do with a violation of physics. Your repeating this again and again does nothing to prove Lessans wrong. It's just an effort to make it appear that Lessans is wrong. :(
Reply With Quote
  #6629  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:40 PM
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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
A pinhole camera does not have an actual lens but it acts like a lens. And it also meets the requirements because the object is present. It's no different than a camera with an actual lens. Other than this, what camera does not have a lens, or what higher organism doesn't have a lens?
Camera film and photosensitive papers can interact with photons simply lying flat on a counter, or even in a canister or box, if someone accidentally exposes it to any light.
Yes, the photosensitive papers interact with photons, but show me where those photons turn into an actual picture of something other than light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I had to learn to remove film from the small canister (that goes into the camera) and put it on a spindle and insert it into another light-tight canister in total darkness, not even a red light could be turned on for that step of the process, because the photons would have chemically reacted with the unprocessed film and ruined the pictures.

What do higher organisms have to do with anything? Do lower organisms not have efferent vision because they don't have lenses?
Higher organisms have lenses which is essential for seeing. Lower organisms only detect light. They do not see objects. Do you understand at all what I'm talking about? :chin:
Reply With Quote
  #6630  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:41 PM
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

Many science and kids discovery museums have photo-sensitive walls that photographically freeze your shadow. No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing us to see it. You stand in front of the wall, a bright light flashes, you step away and there's your shadow still on the wall. My son has done this several times. Have you never been anyplace or seen anything?

Exhibits: Children's Museum at Holyoke Exhibits
Reuben H. Fleet:: Discover Your 'Inner Inventor' at "Tinkering"
Discover learn-by-doing science fun - Morning Call
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-27-2012), Crumb (01-27-2012)
  #6631  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:44 PM
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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
A pinhole camera does not have an actual lens but it acts like a lens. And it also meets the requirements because the object is present. It's no different than a camera with an actual lens. Other than this, what camera does not have a lens, or what higher organism doesn't have a lens?
Camera film and photosensitive papers can interact with photons simply lying flat on a counter, or even in a canister or box, if someone accidentally exposes it to any light.
Yes, the photosensitive papers interact with photons, but show me where those photons turn into an actual picture of something other than light.
The whole point is that they use the controlled exposure to light to create pictures. That's what they do. Without actual photons actually touching the film or paper, there can be no picture of anything, no photo-chemical reaction of any kind.

So, Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?


HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halid molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?
Reply With Quote
  #6632  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:45 PM
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
He will also be clarifying many of the concepts by saying "quote" when he begins his elaboration and "unquote" when he's finished elaborating on a particular point.
That is of course the very best way to "quote" clarify "unquote" a concept.
You're right, and that's exactly what he did. :yup:
Reply With Quote
  #6633  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:49 PM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

You absolutely cannot understand the concept of efferent vision which does not require the actual travel time of photons to strike the retina or film when the only requirement is for the light to be surrounding the object. It's really going to take a lot more time than I realized for people to get this. In the meantime, I need a break from this topic. If anyone wants to understand his first discovery, please let me know because that's what I want to discuss. I won't discuss anymore of this book if I see no interest.
1. You are lying again. You want to run away from this topic because you have no answers for the questions. How do you explain that the moons of Jupiter are proven to be seen in delayed time, when Lessans predicted they would be seen in real time? How do you explain the fact that NASA depends on delayed-time calculations of other celestial bodies to send their space craft to them?

How do you explain these things?
Efferent vision. :wave:

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
"The only requirement is for the light to be surrounding the object." And what everyone has been asking you is, how do we see that light, which is surrounding the object? By what physical mechanism?

But, your non-explanations don't matter. What matters is, we don't actually see in real time.

The only thing anyone should really ask you from now on, is about traveling to Mars and the moons of Jupiter.
Doesn't make a difference. If the brain works the way Lessans' described it is a very plausible model which is in opposition to the standard model of sight. This needs to be taken seriously if scientists are interested in the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #6634  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:50 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!
You're just repeating the same refutation that does not hold up in reality Vivisectus, but you're hanging on for dear life. How many times do I have to say, for you to hear me, that Lessans' observations have nothing to do with a violation of physics. Your repeating this again and again does nothing to prove Lessans wrong. It's just an effort to make it appear that Lessans is wrong. :(
Then I am sure you can point out what is wrong about those statements! So far you have been unable to do so. All you can manage is what you do here: make an empty, unsupported claim. I can back every one of these statements up with logic and data.
Reply With Quote
  #6635  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:51 PM
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

Back to faith-based assertions, peacegirl. You have no model. Without a model no plausibility, and certainly no credibility. There is nothing for science to take seriously because all you are offering is claims of magic.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (01-27-2012)
  #6636  
Old 01-27-2012, 02:55 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

On a side-note, how are the book sales? Have you seen any significant interest so far, gotten any feedback from other people? How many have been sold so far?
Reply With Quote
  #6637  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:02 PM
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 LadyShea View Post
Many science and kids discovery museums have photo-sensitive walls that photographically freeze your shadow. No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing us to see it. You stand in front of the wall, a bright light flashes, you step away and there's your shadow still on the wall. My son has done this several times. Have you never been anyplace or seen anything?

Exhibits: Children's Museum at Holyoke Exhibits
Reuben H. Fleet:: Discover Your 'Inner Inventor' at "Tinkering"
Discover learn-by-doing science fun - Morning Call
LadyShea, what does this have to do with what I'm offering? Srsly, are you kidding me?
Reply With Quote
  #6638  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:03 PM
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 Vivisectus View Post
On a side-note, how are the book sales? Have you seen any significant interest so far, gotten any feedback from other people? How many have been sold so far?
Vivsectus, DON'T PLAY THIS MANIPULATIVE GAME WITH ME, OKAY? There is no way sales could be up when I have not advertised or marketed in any way. If you want to be an investor, hey, come on board. You will have a limited copy when this knowledge is recognized. In fact, there is no telling how rich you could become.

Last edited by peacegirl; 01-27-2012 at 09:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6639  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:05 PM
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 LadyShea View Post
Many science and kids discovery museums have photo-sensitive walls that photographically freeze your shadow. No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing us to see it. You stand in front of the wall, a bright light flashes, you step away and there's your shadow still on the wall. My son has done this several times. Have you never been anyplace or seen anything?

Exhibits: Children's Museum at Holyoke Exhibits
Reuben H. Fleet:: Discover Your 'Inner Inventor' at "Tinkering"
Discover learn-by-doing science fun - Morning Call
LadyShea, what does this have to do with what I'm offering? Srsly, are you kidding me?
If you don't see the inherent and obvious connection to what you are claiming about photography, then you have no business making claims about photography. Here's the hint: No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing itself to be seen, yet a picture of your shadow.
Reply With Quote
  #6640  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:07 PM
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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Many science and kids discovery museums have photo-sensitive walls that photographically freeze your shadow. No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing us to see it. You stand in front of the wall, a bright light flashes, you step away and there's your shadow still on the wall. My son has done this several times. Have you never been anyplace or seen anything?

Exhibits: Children's Museum at Holyoke Exhibits
Reuben H. Fleet:: Discover Your 'Inner Inventor' at "Tinkering"
Discover learn-by-doing science fun - Morning Call
LadyShea, what does this have to do with what I'm offering? Srsly, are you kidding me?
If you don't see the inherent and obvious connection to what you are claiming about photography, then you have no business making claims about photography. Here's the hint: No lenses, no object surrounded by light allowing itself to be seen, yet a picture of your shadow.
But I do see the inherent connection. So where do we go from here? :glare:
Reply With Quote
  #6641  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:08 PM
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

Then why did you ask what it had to do with the model you are offering?
Reply With Quote
  #6642  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:08 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
On a side-note, how are the book sales? Have you seen any significant interest so far, gotten any feedback from other people? How many have been sold so far?
Vivsectus, DON'T PLAY THIS MANIPULATIVE GAME WITH ME, OKAY? There is no way sales are up because I have not advertised. There is no marketing. If you want to be an investor, hey, come on board. You will make a mint eventually.
Touchy! I am merely curious.

How many have you sold in total? We know you sold at least one on Amazon. We read the review, which seems to have mysteriously disappeared since then, possibly because he considered it a complete waste of time and money. Has anyone given you any more positive or constructive feedback? Has anyone been convinced yet?
Reply With Quote
  #6643  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:09 PM
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

Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?


HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halide molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?
Reply With Quote
  #6644  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:13 PM
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 LadyShea View Post
Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?
Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halide molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?
Actual photons are interacting with the film, believe it or not LadyShea. As I have said over and over that efferent vision is responsible for this, and until you understand the mechanism that allows this, you will be confounded. If you're having a problem with understanding why we get a picture even though the light hasn't reached Earth, you need a refresher course. This does not, IN ANY WAY, negate the truth of efferent vision. :(
Reply With Quote
  #6645  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:14 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

You absolutely cannot understand the concept of efferent vision which does not require the actual travel time of photons to strike the retina or film when the only requirement is for the light to be surrounding the object. It's really going to take a lot more time than I realized for people to get this. In the meantime, I need a break from this topic. If anyone wants to understand his first discovery, please let me know because that's what I want to discuss. I won't discuss anymore of this book if I see no interest.
1. You are lying again. You want to run away from this topic because you have no answers for the questions. How do you explain that the moons of Jupiter are proven to be seen in delayed time, when Lessans predicted they would be seen in real time? How do you explain the fact that NASA depends on delayed-time calculations of other celestial bodies to send their space craft to them?

How do you explain these things?
Efferent vision. :wave:
:lol:

Your so-called "efferent vision," by which you mean real-time seeing, is contradicted by the fact that we don't see in real-time, as the examples of the moons of Jupiter and how NASA sends spacecraft to celestial bodies proves. So when I ask you to explain the fact that we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time, and we send vehicles to Mars and other bodies by calculating the difference between the apparent and actual locations of the bodies -- in other words, when I ask you explain how real-time seeing can be true, when it is emprically demonstrated to be false -- you say the explanation is "efferent vision!"

:lol: Dishonest little imbcile. Buh-bye! :wave:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-27-2012)
  #6646  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:17 PM
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 Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
On a side-note, how are the book sales? Have you seen any significant interest so far, gotten any feedback from other people? How many have been sold so far?
Vivsectus, DON'T PLAY THIS MANIPULATIVE GAME WITH ME, OKAY? There is no way sales are up because I have not advertised. There is no marketing. If you want to be an investor, hey, come on board. You will make a mint eventually.
Touchy! I am merely curious.

How many have you sold in total? We know you sold at least one on Amazon. We read the review, which seems to have mysteriously disappeared since then, possibly because he considered it a complete waste of time and money. Has anyone given you any more positive or constructive feedback? Has anyone been convinced yet?
Are you kidding me Vivisectus? How can you conclude that something is false by the show of sales? Aren't you placing the cart before the horse? Answer me honestly or I won't respond to you anymore as I will see you as a total fake.
Reply With Quote
  #6647  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:19 PM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

You absolutely cannot understand the concept of efferent vision which does not require the actual travel time of photons to strike the retina or film when the only requirement is for the light to be surrounding the object. It's really going to take a lot more time than I realized for people to get this. In the meantime, I need a break from this topic. If anyone wants to understand his first discovery, please let me know because that's what I want to discuss. I won't discuss anymore of this book if I see no interest.
1. You are lying again. You want to run away from this topic because you have no answers for the questions. How do you explain that the moons of Jupiter are proven to be seen in delayed time, when Lessans predicted they would be seen in real time? How do you explain the fact that NASA depends on delayed-time calculations of other celestial bodies to send their space craft to them?

How do you explain these things?
Efferent vision. :wave:
:lol:

Your so-called "efferent vision," by which you mean real-time seeing, is contradicted by the fact that we don't see in real-time, as the examples of the moons of Jupiter and how NASA sends spacecraft to celestial bodies proves. So when I ask you to explain the fact that we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time, and we send vehicles to Mars and other bodies by calculating the difference between the apparent and actual locations of the bodies -- in other words, when I ask you explain how real-time seeing can be true, when it is emprically demonstrated to be false -- you say the explanation is "efferent vision!"

:lol: Dishonest little imbcile. Buh-bye! :wave:
Bye bye davidm. If you think Lessans is so wrong, why don't you leave? Are you trying to protect characters like Spiderman? Where do we draw the line? Could it be that actually think you're Spiderman himself? Now I'm beginning to wonder if your personal reality is not a delusion. :( What is it that keeps you here if you think I'm so off track? :eek:
Reply With Quote
  #6648  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:29 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
On a side-note, how are the book sales? Have you seen any significant interest so far, gotten any feedback from other people? How many have been sold so far?
Vivsectus, DON'T PLAY THIS MANIPULATIVE GAME WITH ME, OKAY? There is no way sales are up because I have not advertised. There is no marketing. If you want to be an investor, hey, come on board. You will make a mint eventually.
Touchy! I am merely curious.

How many have you sold in total? We know you sold at least one on Amazon. We read the review, which seems to have mysteriously disappeared since then, possibly because he considered it a complete waste of time and money. Has anyone given you any more positive or constructive feedback? Has anyone been convinced yet?
Are you kidding me Vivisectus? How can you conclude that something is false by the show of sales? Aren't you placing the cart before the horse? Answer me honestly or I won't respond to you anymore as I will see you as a total fake.
What the hell are you on about now? I am merely curious about how many you have sold, and if you have received any feedback about it. Plain and simple.
Reply With Quote
  #6649  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:57 PM
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
Yes, the photosensitive papers interact with photons, but show me where those photons turn into an actual picture of something other than light.

Every time you look at a photograph it is the result of photons reacting with film or the photo receptors in a digital camera. With film the lens focuses the light that is reflected from the object or scene onto the film which reacts to the color frequency and intensity of the light, this produces a negative image on the film. Then by shining light thru the film onto print paper the positive image is produced when the light interacts with the print paper. With a digital camera the lens focuses the light onto the image sensor which turns the image into a digital map of the image that can be stored on the computer memory in the camera. This image can then be printed out onto print paper, usually through a computer hookup. So everytime you look at a photograph it is a picture that is the result of photons being turned into an actual picture of something.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-27-2012)
  #6650  
Old 01-27-2012, 03:59 PM
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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
. Photons are constantly being emitted, that is a fact, but the only way we get the (P) photons on film/retina is when the lens of the film or retina is focused on the object. It's as simple as that. If we happen to be looking at something that is parallel to the object, those photons that are made up of the visible spectrum. The only time we actually get a mirror image of the object is when we're looking directly at it and there is enough light surrounding the object for us to see it.
When the eye focuses on an object and we see that object, what is in our peripheral vision? What about the objects in the background or off to the side that the eye is not focusing on, an object that is further away and out of focus to the eye? Do we see them if the eye is not focused on them?
We see it exactly as a mirror image, which means the peripheral vision would be blurred. It's an inverse relation to the object's absorptive properties, so it makes perfect sense.
No it doesn't quite make perfect sense to me. You state that we need to be looking directly at an object to see the mirror image of it, but the other objects around we are not looking at directly so blured or not how can we see them? Could you explain this in more detail, because right now it seems like a contradiction to say that we need to look directly at somethingto see it, but we can still see something that we are not looking directly at?
Just trying to understand this?
Have you made up your answer yet?
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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 01:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.36372 seconds with 14 queries