You didn't read the book either Pood.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that anyone who doesn't
agree with the book must not have
read the book. This is absolutely false, for
any book.
But it widely believed by religionists, of their own favourite book(s).
No one has read the book, bilby, not even Pood. I will bet my right arm that he hasn't read it because he doesn't own it, he never did. All these years he just grabbed excerpts and made fun of the author when it was taken out of context. The author also created some humor as comic relief. But as time went on, the aggression got worse and worse. I'll never go through that again.
You took all the humor out, the best stuff in the book, about the “juicy, juicy C’s,” the ur-Penis etc.
And yes, I have read all of the relevant stuff about light and sight, and it’s wrong, for reasons indicated.
So what was his demonstration that explained what he believed was going on? You don't know Pood. Just say it, is it that hard?
I DON'T KNOW.
No, I don’t know, because he didn’t given any demonstration! I’ve told you this a million times. Asserting that seeing is efferent (false), that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone (false), and that “words are projected onto an undeniable screen of substance” (incomprehensible) are a “demonstration” of exactly nothing.
Bilby explained what a demonstration would be. So, demonstrate.
I'm not posting the entire chapter again. I'll post the beginning and if doesn't whet anyone's appetite, there's nothing I can do about it because I'm not going to state this chapter in my own words. It's hard enough to state something that everybody disagrees with so it would be suicidal if I didn't let him do the talking since he was the discoverer, not me. If no one is interested after this small introduction, I am not going to continue and put myself in a vulnerable position.
CHAPTER FOUR
WORDS, NOT REALITY
[td]
O
[/td]
ur problem of hurting each other is very deep-rooted and begins with words through which we have not been allowed to see reality for what it really is. Supposing I stood up in one of our universities and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to prove that man does not have five senses, which has nothing to do with a sixth sense,” wouldn’t all the professors laugh and say, “Are you serious or are you being funny? You can’t be serious because everybody knows man has five senses. This is an established fact.” The definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes ‘stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses, so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruit. The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly could not call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato, which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit. Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category to which they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world — the five senses — when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change who we are. Whether we call them five senses or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them. Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.
Mankind has been slowly developing and if you go back far enough in history you will find that we believed pregnancy was caused by the bite of an enamored snake, which prevented many girls from bathing at certain times but never prevented them from mating. Today we have thousands of lesser Aristotle’s preventing breakthroughs into various hermetically sealed doors. We call them professors and Ph.D.s. Again, this is not a criticism, but they accept what has been taught to them and pass it along from generation to generation, which makes it very difficult for them to listen to any explanation that must contravene their reputation as leading authorities. That is why they reject people, put anyone down who does not have what they are proud of — their formal education. But please remember that they, too, are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, and it isn’t fair to criticize them for being proud of their scholastic achievements. I refused to let a Ph.D. in math read my book, not because he gave me the wrong answer to a math problem, but because he said my answer must be wrong since he was a Ph.D., and I was not. You might find this problem of interest since it originated with Sir Isaac Newton. If it takes 3 cows two weeks to eat two acres of grass and all the grass that grows on the two acres in two weeks, and if it takes two cows four weeks to eat two acres of grass and all the grass grown on the two acres in the four weeks, how many cows would be required to eat 6 acres of grass in 6 weeks and all the grass that grows on the 6 acres in the six weeks? Because it was difficult for this Ph.D. to accept the fact that he could not work out this problem, it gave him greater satisfaction to put me and my answer down. Are you beginning to recognize how difficult it has been for me to bring this knowledge to light when it is utterly impossible for our leading authorities to get greater satisfaction listening to any explanation of new knowledge that must reveal their unconscious ignorance that they never knew the truth, only thought they knew? I, however, know the truth and know that I know the truth, and one day, as Gregor Mendel declared when he didn’t bring his discovery to light, “My time will come.” Now let’s continue.
The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch, and smell.
Upon hearing this, my friend asked me in a rather authoritarian tone of voice, “Are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”
I replied, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive because you yourself saw the relations revealing this truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”
“I am not that positive, but we were taught this.”
It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed, but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound, as you will soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell, sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences that exist, but when we say that these five are senses, we are assuming the eyes function like the other four, which they do not. When you learn what this single misconception has done to the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So, without further delay, I shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches, or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.
“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract depending on the intensity?”
That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing. If there was no light, we could not see, and if there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums, whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve. Did you ever wonder why the eyes of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what exists around him, although the other four senses are in full working order?
“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”
“And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is not the truth. In fact, if a newborn infant was placed in a soundproof room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a prerequisite of sight — even though his eyes were wide open —he could never have the desire to see. Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other four organs of sense, this baby, child, young, and middle aged person would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.
