Well no, it is not duuuuuuh Write4U. Again, you have no conception as to the reason for his claim, so this is a ridiculous conversation.
Nor do you. :lol: You just parrot it in the same way that you would parrot, "the sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts" if simple Seymour had written that.
You know what, you might as well let this conversation go. You have no idea what Lessans was even talking about.
:lol: And no one else does, either, including you! Which is why you can never answer Spacemonkey's direct questions. It is always entertaining to watch you squirm, though. :lol:
Huh? If it takes 81/2 minutes for the light to reach our neighbor, we will see him due to the same mechanism that would allow us to see the Sun instantly.
ROFLMAO!
You're deluded.
:lol:
You remain, even after all this time, marginally amusing. But only just marginally. Can't you dream up new batshit insane stuff to babble about? Let's see, didn't you recently say, "distance does not depend on distance" or some such? Go with that for awhile; it's an amusing new batshit insanity.
Ok, Lessans did not claim "afferent vision", where Aristotle already advocated for afferent "intromission".
But in post #2619 I explained the false premise of Lessans proposal (as told by peacegirl).
Perhaps we are looking too deep at Lessans' "instant vision" proposal. As long as the sun is shining, of course half of the earth is "bathed" in sunlight by the continual stream of photons emanating from the sun. It is these transient photons which we observe instantly as they hit our retina, because it is an "uninterrupted stream" of photons.
Thus Lessans proposal translates into "when the sun shines (at least 8 1/2 minutes) before we open our eyes we see the (stream of) photons (light) instantly. Well, duuuuuh.
But as peacegirl stated it, "when god were to turn on the sun at noon, we would instantly see that light, while we would have to wait 8 1/2 minutes before I can see my neighbor. That is obviously a false statement.
And the claim that we need to wait 8 1/2 minutes before we see our neighbor is false. He is bathed in the same stream of photons and the reflected light may take an additional few nanseconds to reach our eye. Certainly NOT 8 1/2 minutes.
The correct posit would be, "if god turned the sun on at noon, I and my neighbor would both have to wait 8 1/2 minutes before either could see the sun or each other. Where is the revolutionary discovery in this?
A child of 10 can figure that out
.
Lessans did not claim your correct statement above, he did claim that we would see the Sun the instant it was turned on, but would need to wait 8.5 minutes to see the person standing beside us. He also stated that we see everything that we look at instantly as long as the conditions are met. You need to wade through Lessans word salad to find out what he actually said about light and sight. The writing in his book is confused enough that Peacegirl can twist it to mean several different things, but the instant seeing is clear enough.
ROFLMAO!
:lol:
You remain, even after all this time, marginally amusing. But only just marginally. Can't you dream up new batshit insane stuff to babble about? Let's see, didn't you recently say, "distance does not depend on distance" or some such? Go with that for awhile; it's an amusing new batshit insanity.
That was one of Peacegirl's more endearing qualities on FF, that she was constantly coming up with different entertaining statements about her fathers book. Ahh, those were the days. I'm so glad that we got her back onto light and sight, now if we can only get her to discuss some of the other ideas in the book. When other posters elaborate on the finer points of reality, it is interesting, but when Peacegirl starts babbling about the book and her understanding of it, it's truly entertaining, in a wide eyed, "did she really post that", sort of way.
ROFLMAO!
:lol:
You remain, even after all this time, marginally amusing. But only just marginally. Can't you dream up new batshit insane stuff to babble about? Let's see, didn't you recently say, "distance does not depend on distance" or some such? Go with that for awhile; it's an amusing new batshit insanity.
That was one of Peacegirl's more endearing qualities on FF, that she was constantly coming up with different entertaining statements about her fathers book. Ahh, those were the days. I'm so glad that we got her back onto light and sight, now if we can only get her to discuss some of the other ideas in the book. When other posters elaborate on the finer points of reality, it is interesting, but when Peacegirl starts babbling about the book and her understanding of it, it's truly entertaining, in a wide eyed, "did she really post that", sort of way.
For a few moments I was inspired to write a few movie scripts, a new twist on the "invisible man" would be the "8 1/2 minute invisible man".
And perhaps an even better variation on the movie "High Noon", where the first man to see the sun would have 8 1/2 minutes to kill the other.
Think of it! Academy award stuff for sure.
Or if I wanted instant fame and fortune, I could rob a bank in "broad daylight" and have 8 1/2 minutes to make my getaway, without being seen.
The news media would pick up on that story very quickly. In the anals of crime it would surely be remembered as the
"8 1/2 minute heist".
Good stuff that. Thanks Lessans for inspiring me to ever greater intellectual and artistic "insights", or is that "outasights"?
The photons ARE there Spacemonkey, that's just the point. I already explained about the requirements for sight. You will never accept it because you keep referring back to the afferent account. You don't understand why the photons are at the eye, even though light has not reached Earth yet. This does not mean there is a gap because the light hasn't arrived so, according to your logic, how in the world can light be where it hasn't traveled to? I will repeat that the photoreceptors are already at the retina the instant our gaze is in the direction of the object because of the way the eyes work, not light. It's a closed system as I tried to explain. Nothing I say will work because you are convinced he was wrong. I am not going to keep repeating the same thing because you will continue to say this account is not possible. The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and test it accurately.
I asked you a very simple Yes or No question. Please show me the basic courtesy of providing an answer.
So if you are claiming that the wavelength can be there at the retina before the photons have had time to travel to it, and you concede that the wavelength cannot be there without the photons also being there, then are you saying the photons at the retina got there by some means other than traveling there from the Sun? Is this what you are saying? (Yes or No!)
The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and test it accurately.
Scientists have considered this claim seriously in the past, and have tested it accurately, and it has always failed. Lessans was wrong.
No they didn't.
1) Are you saying that the wavelength can be there without the photons being there?
No Spacemonkey. I'm not saying that.
So if you are claiming that the wavelength can be there at the retina before the photons have had time to travel to it, and you concede that the wavelength cannot be there without the photons also being there, then are you saying the photons at the retina got there by some means other than traveling there from the Sun? Is this what you are saying? (Yes or No!)
Bump.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that if the object is within our field of view, all that is required is that light is bright enough which then reveals the object because that light is already at the retina IN THIS ACCOUNT. It does not have to travel to Earth because it is not the light that is bringing us the image to be decoded. Regardless of how far away something is has no relevance if it meets the requirements for sight. The brain interprets what is being seen. I know the difference between a candle in a dark room and seeing the moon at night, but the mechanism that allows us to see both [in real time] is the same. I want to get back to the other conversation. This discussion will only serve as lulz.
1) Are you saying that the wavelength can be there without the photons being there?
No Spacemonkey. I'm not saying that.
So if you are claiming that the wavelength can be there at the retina before the photons have had time to travel to it, and you concede that the wavelength cannot be there without the photons also being there, then are you saying the photons at the retina got there by some means other than traveling there from the Sun? Is this what you are saying? (Yes or No!)
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Then you are flat out contradicting yourself. Yet again.
You said the wavelength is there before the photons can travel there.
You also said that the wavelength is not there before the photons, so the photons are also there before they can have traveled there.
And now you also say that they
didn't get there by any means other than traveling.
Put these three claims together and you've said that the photons travel to the retina and get there before they have had enough time to travel there.
Batshit insane lunacy, seriously. Which of the above contradictory statements are you prepared to retract?
1) Are you saying that the wavelength can be there without the photons being there?
No Spacemonkey. I'm not saying that.
So if you are claiming that the wavelength can be there at the retina before the photons have had time to travel to it, and you concede that the wavelength cannot be there without the photons also being there, then are you saying the photons at the retina got there by some means other than traveling there from the Sun? Is this what you are saying? (Yes or No!)
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Then you are flat out contradicting yourself. Yet again.
You said the wavelength is there before the photons can travel there.
You also said that the wavelength is not there before the photons, so the photons are also there before they can have traveled there.
And now you also say that they
didn't get there by any means other than traveling.
Put these three claims together and you've said that the photons travel to the retina and get there before they have had enough time to travel there.
Batshit insane lunacy, seriously. Which of the above contradictory statements are you prepared to retract?
Why are you here? What is your motive? I don't get it. Why do you need me to retract anything just to satisfy your theory. Go your merry way; laugh at what Lessans claimed and be happy!
Why are you here? What is your motive? I don't get it. Why do you need me to retract anything just to satisfy your theory. Go your merry way; laugh at what Lessans claimed and be happy!
You're evading again. YOU need to retract at least one of your below claims because they are not consistent. Your account cannot be plausible while it remains flatly contradictory.
You said the wavelength is there before the photons can travel there.
You also said that the wavelength is not there before the photons, so the photons are also there before they can have traveled there.
And now you also say that they
didn't get there by any means other than traveling.
Put these three claims together and you've said that the photons travel to the retina and get there before they have had enough time to travel there.
Batshit insane lunacy, seriously. Which of the above contradictory statements are you prepared to retract?
Why are you here? What is your motive? I don't get it. Why do you need me to retract anything just to satisfy your theory. Go your merry way; laugh at what Lessans claimed and be happy!
You're evading again. YOU need to retract at least one of your below claims because they are not consistent. Your account cannot be plausible while it remains flatly contradictory.
You said the wavelength is there before the photons can travel there.
You also said that the wavelength is not there before the photons, so the photons are also there before they can have traveled there.
And now you also say that they
didn't get there by any means other than traveling.
Put these three claims together and you've said that the photons travel to the retina and get there before they have had enough time to travel there.
Batshit insane lunacy, seriously. Which of the above contradictory statements are you prepared to retract?
I am not evading Spacemonkey. You just don't grasp this account. I'm done. I'm not going to continue this debate because the premise that you are counting on is wrong, and I cannot prove it in the way you are approaching the problem, therefore, anything I say will make me look wrong and you right, especially when you have the entire scientific community backing you.
I am not evading Spacemonkey.
Yes you are. I'm asking a question and you're not answering. That is evasion.
You just don't grasp this account.
Your account is contradictory.
I'm not going to continue this debate because the premise that you are counting on is wrong...
My only premise here is that contradictions cannot be true. Do you dispute this? All the rest is what YOU have said, not me.
...and I cannot prove it in the way you are approaching the problem...
The way I am approaching the problem is to ask you to stop saying contradictory things.
Again...
You said the wavelength is there before the photons can travel there.
You also said that the wavelength is not there before the photons, so the photons are also there before they can have traveled there.
And now you also say that they
didn't get there by any means other than traveling.
Put these three claims together and you've said that the photons travel to the retina and get there before they have had enough time to travel there.
Batshit insane lunacy, seriously.
Which of the above contradictory statements are you prepared to retract?
The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and test it accurately.
Scientists have considered this claim seriously in the past, and have tested it accurately, and it has always failed. Lessans was wrong.
No they didn't.
Ignoring the truth will not make it go away.
No matter how often you proclaim Lessans book, will make it any less of a fantasy.
I am not evading Spacemonkey.
Yes you are. I'm asking a question and you're not answering. That is evasion.
You just don't grasp this account.
Your account is contradictory.
I'm not going to continue this debate because the premise that you are counting on is wrong...
My only premise here is that contradictions cannot be true. Do you dispute this? All the rest is what YOU have said, not me.
...and I cannot prove it in the way you are approaching the problem...
The way I am approaching the problem is to ask you to stop saying contradictory things.
Again...
You said the wavelength is there before the photons can travel there.
You also said that the wavelength is not there before the photons, so the photons are also there before they can have traveled there.
And now you also say that they
didn't get there by any means other than traveling.
Put these three claims together and you've said that the photons travel to the retina and get there before they have had enough time to travel there.
Batshit insane lunacy, seriously.
Which of the above contradictory statements are you prepared to retract?
It is not contradictory. THERE only means we get a mirror image (without the need for photons to reach Earth) so it is not batshit insane lunacy as you claim. You never did understand the reason for this.
THERE only means we get a mirror image (without the need for photons to reach Earth) so it is not batshit insane lunacy as you claim. You never did understand the reason for this.
Because there is no reason for it, the whole idea is nonsense and does not fit with reality.
ROFLMAO!
:lol:
You remain, even after all this time, marginally amusing. But only just marginally. Can't you dream up new batshit insane stuff to babble about? Let's see, didn't you recently say, "distance does not depend on distance" or some such? Go with that for awhile; it's an amusing new batshit insanity.
That was one of Peacegirl's more endearing qualities on FF, that she was constantly coming up with different entertaining statements about her fathers book. Ahh, those were the days. I'm so glad that we got her back onto light and sight, now if we can only get her to discuss some of the other ideas in the book. When other posters elaborate on the finer points of reality, it is interesting, but when Peacegirl starts babbling about the book and her understanding of it, it's truly entertaining, in a wide eyed, "did she really post that", sort of way.
For a few moments I was inspired to write a few movie scripts, a new twist on the "invisible man" would be the "8 1/2 minute invisible man".
And perhaps an even better variation on the movie "High Noon", where the first man to see the sun would have 8 1/2 minutes to kill the other.
Think of it! Academy award stuff for sure.
Or if I wanted instant fame and fortune, I could rob a bank in "broad daylight" and have 8 1/2 minutes to make my getaway, without being seen.
The news media would pick up on that story very quickly. In the anals of crime it would surely be remembered as the
"8 1/2 minute heist".
Good stuff that. Thanks Lessans for inspiring me to ever greater intellectual and artistic "insights", or is that "outasights"?
Or you could do it as a sort of news flash, ala David's occasional posts.
THERE only means we get a mirror image (without the need for photons to reach Earth) so it is not batshit insane lunacy as you claim. You never did understand the reason for this.
Because there is no reason for it, the whole idea is nonsense and does not fit with reality.
No doc, it's you that does not grasp the plausibility of this knowledge because you, like everyone else, believe he couldn't be right since it goes against everything you have been taught is true from a very early age.
THERE only means we get a mirror image (without the need for photons to reach Earth) so it is not batshit insane lunacy as you claim. You never did understand the reason for this.
Because there is no reason for it, the whole idea is nonsense and does not fit with reality.
No doc, it's you that does not grasp the plausibility of this knowledge because you, like everyone else, believe he couldn't be right since it goes against everything you have been taught is true from a very early age.
I know that Lessans isn't right because I've read his book and can see where he was wrong in his ideas. Lessans claims are contradictory to everything that I have observed in my own life, he's just plain wrong. And no, I don't believe that everything I was taught is correct, some things I have tested for my self, and found the errors, but Lessans is still wrong.
THERE only means we get a mirror image (without the need for photons to reach Earth) so it is not batshit insane lunacy as you claim. You never did understand the reason for this.
Because there is no reason for it, the whole idea is nonsense and does not fit with reality.
No doc, it's you that does not grasp the plausibility of this knowledge because you, like everyone else, believe he couldn't be right since it goes against everything you have been taught is true from a very early age.
I know that Lessans isn't right because I've read his book and can see where he was wrong in his ideas. Lessans claims are contradictory to everything that I have observed in my own life, he's just plain wrong. And no, I don't believe that everything I was taught is correct, some things I have tested for my self, and found the errors, but Lessans is still wrong.
You would never pass a test of your understanding of this book. You would flunk big time! If this was a course you would have to take it over, or else fail!!