Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #8926  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:07 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 davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
It doesn't matter if she gave a mountain of source material to review. Lessans' claims about light and sight are empirically wrong. That's all we need to know. Since peacegirl herself says that his claims about light and sight must be right as a precondition of accepting his conclusions, then we know already that his conclusions are false.
But they are not empirically wrong David. That's what you want to believe. His reasoning is not a modal fallacy, or is it circular, which you keep insisting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
The modal fallacy applies to his stupid free will argument.
I know what it applies to, but there is no modal fallacy David. That's just something you are using to dismiss his explanation as to why man's will is not free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
His claims on light and sight are empirically wrong. So they are wrong for different reasons: His philosophical argument is deductively wrong (bad logic) and his light-and-sight argument is empirically wrong. So sorry.
His claims on light and sight are not empirically wrong. No one gave me an adequate answer as to why someone slightly out of visual range cannot be seen. To say it's due to the inverse square law is not an adequate answer.
:lol: you dishonest little twerp. You don't even have a clue about what you just wrote.

Now then, here is the question again. Let's see if you can do better:

Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!

Answer, please! :popcorn:
David, until Lessans' claims are tested, there is nothing more to say.
Reply With Quote
  #8927  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:10 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He gives plenty of reasons. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Provide one. Show me ONE reason he gave supporting any one of the presuppositions I listed.
All bluster was it?
Spacemonkey, I really hope that one day you listen to his audio. I'm sure you'll get a different picture of him and his knowledge, even if you feel that more empirical testing has to be done.
Reply With Quote
  #8928  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:10 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

You yourself state outright that Lessans' claims are untested.


So how dare you call them "scientific"? That's an outright lie.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #8929  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:14 PM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
It doesn't matter if she gave a mountain of source material to review. Lessans' claims about light and sight are empirically wrong. That's all we need to know. Since peacegirl herself says that his claims about light and sight must be right as a precondition of accepting his conclusions, then we know already that his conclusions are false.
But they are not empirically wrong David. That's what you want to believe. His reasoning is not a modal fallacy, or is it circular, which you keep insisting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
The modal fallacy applies to his stupid free will argument.
I know what it applies to, but there is no modal fallacy David. That's just something you are using to dismiss his explanation as to why man's will is not free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
His claims on light and sight are empirically wrong. So they are wrong for different reasons: His philosophical argument is deductively wrong (bad logic) and his light-and-sight argument is empirically wrong. So sorry.
His claims on light and sight are not empirically wrong. No one gave me an adequate answer as to why someone slightly out of visual range cannot be seen. To say it's due to the inverse square law is not an adequate answer.
:lol: you dishonest little twerp. You don't even have a clue about what you just wrote.

Now then, here is the question again. Let's see if you can do better:

Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!

Answer, please! :popcorn:
David, until Lessans' claims are tested, there is nothing more to say.
:lol:

They HAVE been tested! That is the point.

They have been tested for hundreds of years. And every single test shows that we see in delayed time!

You are a liar.

Get lost.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Lone Ranger (04-26-2012)
  #8930  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:22 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This is my one and only thread. The people who come here could easily go somewhere else, which is why I am asking you why you are here when you dont have to be and you won't consider the possibility that Lessans was right. Find another thread Spacemonkey. I won't be angry at all.
Again: WHY. ARE. YOU. HERE?

Why do you continue posting here when no-one thinks Lessans' claims have any merit, everyone thinks you're nuts, and you yourself acknowledge that you are wasting your own time? Why are you here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I really don't know what you want from me,
What part of WHY. ARE. YOU. HERE? is confusing to you?

Quote:
but the bottom line is you have not given Lessans a chance.
So are you here to try to make us give Lessans a chance?
Because I thought you were interested, but I can tell from your post that you think you know more than him. You are positive, in your mind, that he is wrong because he didn't use the scientific method the way you expected. I am asking you to leave. People leave meetings all the time, so why can't you?

You aren't serious with this shit? ROFL
No, I'm not serious but there's nothing else to talk about so I might as well talk shit like everyone else. :sadcheer:
Reply With Quote
  #8931  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:24 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
It doesn't matter if she gave a mountain of source material to review. Lessans' claims about light and sight are empirically wrong. That's all we need to know. Since peacegirl herself says that his claims about light and sight must be right as a precondition of accepting his conclusions, then we know already that his conclusions are false.
But they are not empirically wrong David. That's what you want to believe. His reasoning is not a modal fallacy, or is it circular, which you keep insisting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
The modal fallacy applies to his stupid free will argument.
I know what it applies to, but there is no modal fallacy David. That's just something you are using to dismiss his explanation as to why man's will is not free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
His claims on light and sight are empirically wrong. So they are wrong for different reasons: His philosophical argument is deductively wrong (bad logic) and his light-and-sight argument is empirically wrong. So sorry.
His claims on light and sight are not empirically wrong. No one gave me an adequate answer as to why someone slightly out of visual range cannot be seen. To say it's due to the inverse square law is not an adequate answer.
:lol: you dishonest little twerp. You don't even have a clue about what you just wrote.

Now then, here is the question again. Let's see if you can do better:

Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!

Answer, please! :popcorn:
David, until Lessans' claims are tested, there is nothing more to say.
:lol:

They HAVE been tested! That is the point.

They have been tested for hundreds of years. And every single test shows that we see in delayed time!

You are a liar.

Get lost.
No David, Lessans' claims have not been empirically tested for accuracy. I believe when they are, people will begin to realize that a mistake has been made.
Reply With Quote
  #8932  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:25 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
No one gave me an adequate answer as to why someone slightly out of visual range cannot be seen. To say it's due to the inverse square law is not an adequate answer.

If someone is out of visual range, even slightly, they cannot be seen by definition there is no why except that they cannot be seen. The inverse square law does not apply, the whole question is nonsense and a red herring to divert the thread and confuse the issue. The phrasing of the question only demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the subject.
Reply With Quote
  #8933  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:26 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 The Lone Ranger View Post
You yourself state outright that Lessans' claims are untested.


So how dare you call them "scientific"? That's an outright lie.
His observations were extremely astute, but he knew that people would want to test for accuracy. He encouraged that.
Reply With Quote
  #8934  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:28 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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No one gave me an adequate answer as to why someone slightly out of visual range cannot be seen. To say it's due to the inverse square law is not an adequate answer.

If someone is out of visual range, even slightly, they cannot be seen by definition there is no why except that they cannot be seen. The inverse square law does not apply, the whole question is nonsense and a red herring to divert the thread and confuse the issue. The phrasing of the question only demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the subject.
There is never a time that we see an image without the object (the actual material substance) being in view. If just light brought the image to us, then people would be able to see the object when it's long gone, but that never ever happens.
Reply With Quote
  #8935  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:29 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
No, I'm not serious but there's nothing else to talk about so I might as well talk shit like everyone else. :sadcheer:
Hey, knock it off, that's my job.
Reply With Quote
  #8936  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:30 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

You can't have it both ways. Either he used scientific methodology or he didn't.

If he didn't even bother to test his supposed "observations," nor to document his methodology, then he didn't employ scientific methodology by any legitimate definition of science.

In which case you're outright lying when you claim that there's anything at all "scientific" about his unsupported and -- by your own admission -- untested claims.



That having been said, quite a lot of his claims most-definitely have been tested. And falsified.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (04-26-2012), LadyShea (04-26-2012)
  #8937  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:31 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
I believe

And that is the sum total of Peacegirl's position.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (04-26-2012), Stephen Maturin (04-26-2012), The Lone Ranger (04-26-2012)
  #8938  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:35 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
There is never a time that we see an image without the object (the actual material substance) being in view. If just light brought the image to us, then people would be able to see the object when it's long gone, but that never ever happens.

Actually astronomers see objects that are no longer there all the time. Many of the objects observed are gone or have moved and are not in the position where seen. On Earth it can happen but only for a small fraction of a second, as has been explained before, pity you don't remember.
Reply With Quote
  #8939  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:38 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
There is never a time that we see an image without the object (the actual material substance) being in view
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (04-27-2012), thedoc (04-26-2012)
  #8940  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:51 PM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
It doesn't matter if she gave a mountain of source material to review. Lessans' claims about light and sight are empirically wrong. That's all we need to know. Since peacegirl herself says that his claims about light and sight must be right as a precondition of accepting his conclusions, then we know already that his conclusions are false.
But they are not empirically wrong David. That's what you want to believe. His reasoning is not a modal fallacy, or is it circular, which you keep insisting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
The modal fallacy applies to his stupid free will argument.
I know what it applies to, but there is no modal fallacy David. That's just something you are using to dismiss his explanation as to why man's will is not free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
His claims on light and sight are empirically wrong. So they are wrong for different reasons: His philosophical argument is deductively wrong (bad logic) and his light-and-sight argument is empirically wrong. So sorry.
His claims on light and sight are not empirically wrong. No one gave me an adequate answer as to why someone slightly out of visual range cannot be seen. To say it's due to the inverse square law is not an adequate answer.
:lol: you dishonest little twerp. You don't even have a clue about what you just wrote.

Now then, here is the question again. Let's see if you can do better:

Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!

Answer, please! :popcorn:
David, until Lessans' claims are tested, there is nothing more to say.
:lol:

They HAVE been tested! That is the point.

They have been tested for hundreds of years. And every single test shows that we see in delayed time!

You are a liar.

Get lost.
No David, Lessans' claims have not been empirically tested for accuracy. I believe when they are, people will begin to realize that a mistake has been made.
:lol: They haven't?


Then explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!

:popcorn:

It makes you look really bad that you can't answer this question. :wave:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (04-26-2012), The Lone Ranger (04-26-2012)
  #8941  
Old 04-26-2012, 09:09 PM
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 peacegirl View Post
I have to leave as well because nothing has changed. It's deja vu.
So, you were gone for a few days and when you come back nothing has changed. Did you expect that things would change while you were away? Now that would be crazy.
__________________
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
  #8942  
Old 04-26-2012, 09:21 PM
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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No one gave me an adequate answer as to why someone slightly out of visual range cannot be seen. To say it's due to the inverse square law is not an adequate answer.

If someone is out of visual range, even slightly, they cannot be seen by definition there is no why except that they cannot be seen. The inverse square law does not apply, the whole question is nonsense and a red herring to divert the thread and confuse the issue. The phrasing of the question only demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the subject.
There is never a time that we see an image without the object (the actual material substance) being in view. If just light brought the image to us, then people would be able to see the object when it's long gone, but that never ever happens.
:lol:

That's exactly what happens. As has been shown to you hundreds of times.

How many times has LadyShea shown you those Hubble images, and explained how they were made?

Those images on those photos made NOW are of objects that no longer exist at the location described by the photos; none of them any longer exist in the form they were in when the light left them on its way to earth, and some of them don't exist at all!

:lol:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-26-2012)
  #8943  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:04 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 The Lone Ranger View Post
You can't have it both ways. Either he used scientific methodology or he didn't.

If he didn't even bother to test his supposed "observations," nor to document his methodology, then he didn't employ scientific methodology by any legitimate definition of science.

In which case you're outright lying when you claim that there's anything at all "scientific" about his unsupported and -- by your own admission -- untested claims.

That having been said, quite a lot of his claims most-definitely have been tested. And falsified.
There's no doubt that he saw patterns in behavior and was able to glean the common denominator that is shared by all human beings. I don't believe his claims have been tested; at least not formally. No one has challenged the present model because it's been taken for granted that afferent vision is a fact.
Reply With Quote
  #8944  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:10 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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No one gave me an adequate answer as to why someone slightly out of visual range cannot be seen. To say it's due to the inverse square law is not an adequate answer.

If someone is out of visual range, even slightly, they cannot be seen by definition there is no why except that they cannot be seen. The inverse square law does not apply, the whole question is nonsense and a red herring to divert the thread and confuse the issue. The phrasing of the question only demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the subject.
There is never a time that we see an image without the object (the actual material substance) being in view. If just light brought the image to us, then people would be able to see the object when it's long gone, but that never ever happens.
:lol:

That's exactly what happens. As has been shown to you hundreds of times.

How many times has LadyShea shown you those Hubble images, and explained how they were made?

Those images on those photos made NOW are of objects that no longer exist at the location described by the photos; none of them any longer exist in the form they were in when the light left them on its way to earth, and some of them don't exist at all!

:lol:
No David, you can't prove your theory because you can't manipulate the variables. These same variables can be manipulated on Earth. You say that it can't be done on Earth because light travels too fast. That doesn't even make sense when you realize that a person within range is closer to us than a person who is out of range. If light travels too fast the image would not be seen on the film or retina. Of course, you try to let this slip right by without me noticing. :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
  #8945  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:11 PM
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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This is my one and only thread. The people who come here could easily go somewhere else, which is why I am asking you why you are here when you dont have to be and you won't consider the possibility that Lessans was right. Find another thread Spacemonkey. I won't be angry at all.
Again: WHY. ARE. YOU. HERE?

Why do you continue posting here when no-one thinks Lessans' claims have any merit, everyone thinks you're nuts, and you yourself acknowledge that you are wasting your own time? Why are you here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I really don't know what you want from me,
What part of WHY. ARE. YOU. HERE? is confusing to you?

Quote:
but the bottom line is you have not given Lessans a chance.
So are you here to try to make us give Lessans a chance?
Because I thought you were interested, but I can tell from your post that you think you know more than him. You are positive, in your mind, that he is wrong because he didn't use the scientific method the way you expected. I now I am asking you to leave. People leave meetings all the time, so why can't you?

You aren't serious with this shit? ROFL
A person with a dysfunctional memory would say things like this, it's the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. It is hilarious behavior on a forum since there is a written record of everything that had gone on. That's where the mental illness comes in. An illness she shares with her dad. The amazing dance and contortion they go through to maintain that empty mind.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (04-26-2012)
  #8946  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:17 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 Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have to leave as well because nothing has changed. It's deja vu.
So, you were gone for a few days and when you come back nothing has changed. Did you expect that things would change while you were away? Now that would be crazy.
I thought that people would have mulled this thread over and maybe have come up with some new questions, at the very least. Or maybe there would be new people here. But no, they're the same people and they're back to the same old shenanigans. I cannot do this again. It's ashame that after all this time there is a dark cloud over this thread. People are not taking this discovery seriously because of everything that's been said. I guess this is part of the process. Genuine discoveries are not often recognized until many years later. Possibly centuries later.
Reply With Quote
  #8947  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:20 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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There is never a time that we see an image without the object (the actual material substance) being in view. If just light brought the image to us, then people would be able to see the object when it's long gone, but that never ever happens.

Actually astronomers see objects that are no longer there all the time. Many of the objects observed are gone or have moved and are not in the position where seen. On Earth it can happen but only for a small fraction of a second, as has been explained before, pity you don't remember.
I never said objects don't move.
Reply With Quote
  #8948  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:22 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
There's no doubt that he saw patterns in behavior and was able to glean the common denominator that is shared by all human beings.
.

The only 'Patterns in Behavior' Lessans ever saw was on the billiard table. But he must have shot without any 'English' because he didn't use it well in his book.
Reply With Quote
  #8949  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:27 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:
I told you why I'm still here.
No you didn't

Quote:
I haven't decided to go somewhere else, but when I do, I will have no reason to come here. The fact that there are only two people who are trying to think objectively is not enough for me at this point. I don't mind naysayers, but I do mind the tactics people have used here. To me, these people are extremely arrogant and there is no way that I will have a chance. People are followers, and they will follow the leader. It's so obvious to me. This thread has already been ruined, which is exactly what David (who is threatened by this knowledge) hoped to achieve. But that won't stop people from buying the book, and if Lessans is right (which I believe he is), the truth will come out sooner or later.
Why are you still posting if this is how you feel? You are not acting rationally.
I'm hanging on by a thread, but I do realize it's a lost cause.
Reply With Quote
  #8950  
Old 04-26-2012, 10:32 PM
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
No one has challenged the present model because it's been taken for granted that afferent vision is a fact.
Not, it is not "taken for granted" it is observed to be a fact, which you would know if your goldfish brain were able to read The Lone Ranger's essay, for example. :lol:
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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 04:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.35225 seconds with 14 queries