“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

peacegirl

You are posting what we call pseudo science.

No Steve, it’s not pseudo science.

Yes, it is.

How can you say that when you cannot recount what the core of the discovery is?

Nobody can recount it, including you, because there is no discovery.

It’s so odd to me that people make blanket statements that it can’t be right but haven’t asked one relevant question that would show me they actually understood what his observations were that led to making these claims?

Why don’t you bold for us those “observations”?

No, I've done enough. YOU HAVE TO MEET ME HALFWAY. If not, don't bother me.

Saying dogs ca’t recognize their masters by sight alone is not an observation, it is a nonfactual claim. Saying stuff like “the brain projects words onto an undeniable screen of substance” not only fails to be an observation, it is gobbledygook.

Dogs cannot recognize their masters from a lineup or a picture. Bilby tried to make it appear that pictures are different from the real thing. Not true. Children can easily recognize their parents from a picture or from the real thing.

They didn’t come out of thin air.

It did

This is your answer? This is getting ridiculous! I hate to give you this emoji, but it is deserving.

There used to be people passing through the forum making clams and saying since is wrong and does not 'get it'.

It matters not what other people have said. It has no relationship to this discovery and cannot be used as a means to judge its accuracy..

To get the attention of the scientific community you would need to write a paper presenting your theories expressed mathematically. It has ton be testable.

He demonstrated how the brain and eyes work. Did you read it?

LOL, no he did not. He had not clue one about how the brain and eyes work.

If that is true Steve, then you should be able to tell me what his observations were. If you cannot, please don't keep posting because you're just part of the problem.

If you go arud trying to get people to read a book no one will give you any attention.

There’s nothing more I can do. Hopefully it will be forever online and someone with influence will pick it up and carry the ball.

Reality is not decided by “someone with influence.” It is decided by reality.

Yessss! And sometimes it takes a person of influence to change reality for the better. You have no idea what you're talking about.

In a sense the information is always 'there', light is reflecting off an object whether we look at it or not. But that dies not conflict with science.

Light is always traveling at an enormously high rate of speed, but it’s not reflecting off of objects.

Really? Look in the mirror. Turn on a light in a dark room. Look up the crescent moon. What do you think is happening?

The information is there when we look at the object because the light wave is at the eye but the information does not travel where we would see an event from millions of years ago just arriving.

The above makes no sense at all.

Turn the light off in a room and there is a delay between when light stops being emitted and when you perceive the light being off. It happens so fast we can call it real time.

That’s the belief. Light travels fast, granted, but to then say an image is reflected off of an object is fallacious.

Except no one says an image is reflected off an object. Light is reflected by an object.

Triviality. You know what I meant.

In technology real time means a short delay in repose to stimulus. The system reacts ton events as they happen.

if sight is efferent, there is no short delay. There’s no delay at all. That’s what it means to see in real time.

Yes, there is. The speed of light is an absolute limit on the transfer of information.

Yes, if you think in terms of afferent eyes. You are just regurgitating the same old same old. You are making assertions which don't mean anything when it comes to challenging the status quo.

 

[pood]

Sorry, peacegirl, all his claims about light and sight are easily disproved bullshit.

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, peacegirl, all his claims about light and sight are easily disproved bullshit.

I know this was your fervent wish by bringing me here, but truth is truth no matter where you go. Trying to get support from people you think are above truth because they have the most amazing credentials is turning out to be an abject failure.

 

[pood]

Sorry, peacegirl, all his claims about light and sight are easily disproved bullshit.

I know this was your fervent wish by bringing me here, but truth is truth no matter where you go. Trying to get support from people you think are above truth because they have the most amazing credentials is turning out to be an abject failure.

LOL, I didn’t “bring” you here. Your final sentence makes no sense at all.

 

[peacegirl]

peacegirl

You are posting what we call pseudo science.

No Steve, it’s not pseudo science.

Yes, it is.

How can you say that when you cannot recount what the core of the discovery is?

Nobody can recount it, including you, because there is no discovery.

It’s so odd to me that people make blanket statements that it can’t be right but haven’t asked one relevant question that would show me they actually understood what his observations were that led to making these claims?

Why don’t you bold for us those “observations”? Saying dogs ca’t recognize their masters by sight alone is not an observation, it is a nonfactual claim.

I gave you the entire excerpt that explains his observations regarding how the eyes and brain work. I even gave you the post. Did you check it out? That dogs cannot recognize their masters by sight alone (without any other cues) is a claim that has been shown over again to be false.

Saying stuff like “the brain projects words onto an undeniable screen of substance” not only fails to be an observation, it is gobbledygook.

They didn’t come out of thin air.

It did.

There used to be people passing through the forum making clams and saying since is wrong and does not 'get it'.

It matters not what other people have said. It has no relationship to this discovery and cannot be used as a means to judge its accuracy..

To get the attention of the scientific community you would need to write a paper presenting your theories expressed mathematically. It has ton be testable.

He demonstrated how the brain and eyes work. Did you read it?

LOL, no he did not. He had not clue one about how the brain and eyes work.

If you go arud trying to get people to read a book no one will give you any attention.

There’s nothing more I can do. Hopefully it will be forever online and someone with influence will pick it up and carry the ball.

Reality is not decided by “someone with influence.” It is decided by reality.

In a sense the information is always 'there', light is reflecting off an object whether we look at it or not. But that dies not conflict with science.

Light is always traveling at an enormously high rate of speed, but it’s not reflecting off of objects.

Really? Look in the mirror. Turn on a light in a dark room. Look up the crescent moon. What do you think is happening?

The information is there when we look at the object because the light wave is at the eye but the information does not travel where we would see an event from millions of years ago just arriving.

The above makes no sense at all.

Turn the light off in a room and there is a delay between when light stops being emitted and when you perceive the light being off. It happens so fast we can call it real time.

That’s the belief. Light travels fast, granted, but to then say an image is reflected off of an object is fallacious.

Except no one says an image is reflected off an object. Light is reflected by an object.

It means the same thing, just different wording. Reflected off of an object or reflected by an object doesn't change anything, so why are you nitpicking?

In technology real time means a short delay in repose to stimulus. The system reacts ton events as they happen.

if sight is efferent, there is no short delay. There’s no delay at all. That’s what it means to see in real time.

Yes, there is. The speed of light is an absolute limit on the transfer of information.

Information is not transferred so this does not even apply. There is no time involved when the information is not traveling.
That's just another assertion. You are not even trying to understand his reasoning. Light does not reflect the image; it reals what is out there.

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, peacegirl, all his claims about light and sight are easily disproved bullshit.

I know this was your fervent wish by bringing me here, but truth is truth no matter where you go. Trying to get support from people you think are above truth because they have the most amazing credentials is turning out to be an abject failure.

LOL, I didn’t “bring” you here. Your final sentence makes no sense at all.

It makes a lot of sense. People use their credentials to be the ones who are given the right to tell others they are wrong. This is wrong and a complete failure in our ability to progress. Credentials mean little if it gives someone a false sense of being better than someone without those credentials. Many discoveries were made outside of conventional thinking. This is not meant to be a put down, but I'm sick and tired of this author being judged because he was not a member of a leading university and was judged harshly because of it.

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, peacegirl, all his claims about light and sight are easily disproved bullshit.

A non-response, as usual.

 

[peacegirl]

Physics, the nature and attributes of matter/energy, does not allow us to see something before that information is radiated or reflected from the object, then acquired by the senses, where seeing in real time is always after the event.

DBT, that’s not true because the information is already ther what real time seeing is. As I already stated, there is nothing different when it comes to light. Light travels but when you say the image is reflected from the object which sounds like the only logical way to see it, this is exactly what is being challenged. The author stated that the image or information is not being reflected and can only be at the eye or telescope when the object is being viewed directly, not as it travels through space/time. If the image or wavelength traveled to our eyes, the claim would make no sense and would go against physics. I know this is upsetting a lot of people but that is not my intention. I just want scientists to take another look.

It is true. Not because I say so, but demonstrated through scientific research and testing, speed of light, distance, travel time, etc, calculated to the millisecond.

As pointed out, you can test it yourself, project an image of the sun onto piece of cardboard to see sunspots, use a solar filter to directly view the same image, take a photo....where all images relate to each other.

Physicists don't have it wrong.

You are undermining your own case for determinism and change by using false premises.

The testing has not proven that we only see an object after a delay in time. This is a theory. This is not fact. I am not using a false premise. I am disclosing an error in logic.

 

[peacegirl]

Physics, the nature and attributes of matter/energy, does not allow us to see something before that information is radiated or reflected from the object, then acquired by the senses, where seeing in real time is always after the event.

DBT, that’s not true because the information is already ther what real time seeing is. As I already stated, there is nothing different when it comes to light. Light travels but when you say the image is reflected from the object which sounds like the only logical way to see it, this is exactly what is being challenged. The author stated that the image or information is not being reflected and can only be at the eye or telescope when the object is being viewed directly, not as it travels through space/time. If the image or wavelength traveled to our eyes, the claim would make no sense and would go against physics. I know this is upsetting a lot of people but that is not my intention. I just want scientists to take another look.

It is true. Not because I say so, but demonstrated through scientific research and testing, speed of light, distance, travel time, etc, calculated to the millisecond.

As pointed out, you can test it yourself, project an image of the sun onto piece of cardboard to see sunspots, use a solar filter to directly view the same image, take a photo....where all images relate to each other.

I’m not sure where this negates his claim. It actually supports it!

If the claim is that we can see the sun as it is before the light reaches us, it doesn't support the books view because light takes a measurably 8 minutes from the sun to reach us. Just as it takes a measurable time to bounce a laser beam off the moon, etc.

If you argue for a deterministic world, you must consider the laws of physics. You can't just claim that we can see something before the light reaches us.

We can see something before the light reaches us for the reasons given. If the eyes are efferent, we can see something before we see each other only because the light IS already at the eye when the object is large enough and bright enough (by the human eye or a telescope) to see it. Light is the conduit. It is a condition of sight, not a cause. That's why he distinguished between the Sun exploding and being able to see it instantly and having to wait 81/2 minutes later before we can see each other.

Physicists don't have it wrong.

That’s not proof. It’s just an assertion.

No, it's not only testable but has been tested and found to be sound.

No it hasn't. It's a logical conclusion and there is room for this theory to be contested. It has important implications or I wouldn't care one whit whether we see in delayed or real time.

You are undermining your own case for determinism and change by using false premises.

I’m sorry if you feel it undermines the truth regarding determinism.

View attachment 48457

It's not about believing.

I cannot dismiss his observations when they are not only sound, but of major importance. If it undermines people's trust, that only means they haven't read the book and decided for themselves. They are just sheeples. They are depending on others to tell them whether something is true. That's what it's turning out to be.

You can check the evidence for yourself. Relativity, time dilation, speed of light, speed of sound, etc, etc...

None of this proves what you think it does. NONE OF IT.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl and pood, a match made in heaven.

Peacegirl

Is there a community around your author?

It is true the ideas of your author are outdated. From the first part of the last century when model based science was evolving.

There were multiple competing theories of light and only one emerged that was experimentally validated.

Many contributions over centuries and Maxwell in the late 19th century is credited with putting it all together. Light as as alternating electric and magnetic fields traveling at C.

Later Einstein demonstrated light was quantized, photons.

The selection process on theory of light has come and gone.

The claim that he was ignored because he had no academic background sounds like a rationalization.

 

[steve_bank]

Sorry, peacegirl, all his claims about light and sight are easily disproved bullshit.

I am retired and keeping mentally active, exercising the little grey cells as Hercule Poirot would say.

What is your excuse?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl and pood, a match made in heaven.

Peacegirl

Is there a community around your author?

No. What does this matter? Do you think that this proves he was wrong? What was the point of your question?

It is true the ideas of your author are outdated. From the first part of the last century when model based science was evolving.

Man's will is not free. This does not change with time. Our eyes are not sense organs. This does not change with time.

There were multiple competing theories of light and only one emerged that was experimentally validated.

He was not debating light. He was refuting how the eyes work. How many times do I have to say this?

Many contributions over centuries and Maxwell in the late 19th century is credited with putting it all together. Light as as alternating electric and magnetic fields traveling at C.

Later Einstein demonstrated light was quantized, photons.

The selection process on theory of light has come and gone.

You are off topic.

The claim that he was ignored because he had no academic background sounds like a rationalization.

No it isn't. People are constantly appealing to authority as being the only ones that can offer anything valuable. That's how difficult it is when a person is not in the field but has something of interest. He is dismissed outright. Didn't you read the excerpt that Richard Milton wrote? This is exactly what is happening to this author. It's a shame because this knowledge is for our benefit and it's just prolonging a world that is becoming more and more dangerous.

In his book “Alternative Science, Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment” Richard Milton writes: “We are living in a time of rising academic intolerance in which important new discoveries in physics, medicine, and biology are being ridiculed and rejected for reasons that are not scientific. Something precious and irreplaceable is under attack. Our academic liberty — our freedom of thought — is being threatened by an establishment that chooses to turn aside new knowledge unless it comes from their own scientific circles. Some academics appoint themselves vigilantes to guard the gates of science against troublemakers with new ideas. Yet science has a two-thousand-year record of success not because it has been guarded by an Inquisition, but because it is self-regulating. It has succeeded because bad science is driven out by good; an ounce of open-minded experiment is worth any amount of authoritative opinion by self-styled scientific rationalists. The scientific fundamentalism of which these are disturbing signs is found today not merely in remote provincial pockets of conservatism but at the very top of the mainstream management of science on both sides of the Atlantic. Human progress has been powered by the paradigm-shattering inventions of many brilliant iconoclasts, yet just as the scientific community dismissed Edison’s lamp, Roentgen’s X-rays, and even the Wrights’ airplane, today’s “Paradigm Police” do a better job of preserving an outdated mode of thought than of nurturing invention and discovery. One way of explaining this odd reluctance to come to terms with the new, even when there is plenty of concrete evidence available, is to appeal to the natural human tendency not to believe things that sound impossible unless we see them with our own eyes — a healthy skepticism. But there is a good deal more to this phenomenon than a healthy skepticism. It is a refusal even to open our eyes to examine the evidence that is plainly in view. And it is a phenomenon that occurs so regularly in the history of science and technology as to be almost an integral part of the process. It seems that there are some individuals, including very distinguished scientists, who are willing to risk the censure and ridicule of their colleagues by stepping over that mark. This book is about those scientists. But, more importantly, it is about the curious social and intellectual forces that seek to prohibit such research; those areas of scientific research that are taboo subjects; about subjects whose discussion is forbidden under pain of ridicule and ostracism. Often those who cry taboo do so from the best of motives: a desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific enlightenment is not corrupted by the credulous acceptance of crank ideas and that the community does not slide back into what Sir Karl Popper graphically called the ‘tyranny of opinion.’ Yet in setting out to guard the frontiers of knowledge, some scientific purists are adopting a brand of skepticism that is indistinguishable from the tyranny they seek to resist. These modern skeptics are sometimes the most unreflecting of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of science impels them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth. And this raises the important question of just how we can tell a real crank from a real innovator — a Faraday from a false prophet. Merely to dismiss a carefully prepared body of evidence — however barmy it may appear — is to make the same mistake as the crank. In many ways cold fusion is the perfect paradigm of scientific taboo in action. The high priests of hot fusion were quick to ostracize and ridicule those whom they saw as profaning the sacred wisdom. And empirical fact counted for nothing in the face of their concerted derision.

The taboo reaction in science takes many distinct forms. At its simplest and most direct, tabooism is manifested as derision and rejection by scientists (and non-scientists) of those new discoveries that cannot be fitted into the existing framework of knowledge. The reaction is not merely a negative dismissal or refusal to believe; it is strong enough to cause positive actions to be taken by leading skeptics to compel a more widespread adoption in the community of the rejection and disbelief, the shipping up of opposition, and the putting down of anyone unwise enough to step out of line by publicly embracing taboo ideas. The taboo reaction in such simple cases is eventually dispelled because the facts — and the value of the discoveries concerned — prove to be stronger than the taboo belief; but there remains the worrying possibility that many such taboos prove stronger (or more valuable) than the discoveries to which they are applied. In its more subtle form, the taboo reaction draws a circle around a subject and places it ‘out of bounds’ to any form of rational analysis or investigation. In doing so, science often puts up what appears to be a well-considered, fundamental objection, which on closer analysis turns out to be no more than the unreflecting prejudices of a maiden aunt who feels uncomfortable with the idea of mixed bathing. The penalty associated with this form of tabooism is that whole areas of scientific investigation, some of which may well hold important discoveries, remain permanently fenced off and any benefits they may contain are denied us. Subtler still is the taboo whereby scientists in certain fields erect a general prohibition against speaking or writing on the subjects which they consider their own property and where any reference, especially by an outsider, will draw a rapid hostile response. Sometimes, scientists who declare a taboo will insist that only they are qualified to discuss and reach conclusions on the matters that they have made their own property; that only they are privy to the immense body of knowledge and subtlety of argument necessary fully to understand the complexities of the subject and to reach the ‘right’ conclusion. Outsiders, on the other hand, (especially non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to think rationally or analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas and are not privy to subtleties of analysis and inflections of argument that insiders have devoted long painful years to acquiring. Once again, the cost of such tabooism is measured in lost opportunities for discovery. Any contribution to knowledge in terms of rational analysis, or resulting from the different perspective of those outside the field in question, is lost to the community. In its most extreme form scientific tabooism closely resembles the behavior of a priestly caste that is perceived to be the holy guardians of the sacred creed, the beliefs that are the object of the community’s worship. Such guardians feel themselves justified by their religious calling and long training in adopting any measures to repel and to discredit any member of the community who profanes the sacred places, words or rituals regarded as untouchable. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the taboo reaction is that it tends to have a cumulative and permanent discriminatory effect: any idea that is ideologically suspect or counter to the current paradigm is permanently dismissed, and the very fact of its rejection forms the basis of its rejection on all future occasions. It is a little like the court of appeal rejecting the convicted man’s plea of innocence on the grounds that he must be guilty or why else is he in jail? And why else did the police arrest him in the first place? This ‘erring on the side of caution’ means that in the long term the intellectual Devil’s Island where convicted concepts are sent becomes more and more crowded with taboo ideas, all denied to us, and with no possibility of reprieve. We will never know how many tens or hundreds or thousands of important discoveries were thrown in the scrap heap merely because of intolerance and misplaced skepticism.”

 

[steve_bank]

Same response.

How the eye works includes how light works.

Electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. Photons are absorbed photodetectors in the rertina and elctrorns are created. The rest is neuroscience.

Talk about images and information and delay is metaphysical mumbo jumbo with no experimental validation.

Science is based in experiment and observation and measurement.

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

A few months back I had an MRI to look at my retina and the nerves behind it for a vision problem. These days we can image the brain and eyes in fine detail. There is nothing in question about how the eyes and brain work together.

 

[pood]

Sorry, peacegirl, all his claims about light and sight are easily disproved bullshit.

I am retired and keeping mentally active, exercising the little grey cells as Hercule Poirot would say.

What is your excuse?

LULZ. There were a ton of them at FF. Stick around and we might get there.

 

[pood]

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

They are not metaphysical. Science is shot through with metaphysics, and metaphysics can inform science. The claim that the eyes are not sense organs and we see instantly is just empty, easily disproved in a thousand different ways.

 

[peacegirl]

Same response.

How the eye works includes how light works.

They work together in unison, but this doesn't explain how they work in unison.

Electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. Photons are absorbed photodetectors in the rertina and elctrorns are created. The rest is neuroscience.

Calling it neuroscience doesn't diminish his findings.

Talk about images and information and delay is metaphysical mumbo jumbo with no experimental validation.

That was not my verbiage. You are wrong about experimental validation. His claims are easier to validate (testing that can be done here on earth) than the claims science has made regarding distant stars, galaxies, and supernovas. The claim that we see in delayed time has not been established like you think it has. The idea that light bounces off of objects and travels for millions of years before the image reaches our telescopes is a theory, not a fact.

Science is based in experiment and observation and measurement.

You don't think I know that, Steve?

Metaphysics is abstractions not necessarily tied to physical reality. Yourarguments are metaphysical.

Where are this author's arguments metaphysical where science's present theory of delayed vision is proven?

A few months back I had an MRI to look at my retina and the nerves behind it for a vision problem. These days we can image the brain and eyes in fine detail. There is nothing in question about how the eyes and brain work together.

Yes, they know a lot about the retina and the diseases that can occur, but when you say that nothing is in question about how the eyes and brain work because they can see the nerves and retina, does not tell us anything about the claim under discussion. It's a red herring.

 

[peacegirl]

Sorry, peacegirl, all his claims about light and sight are easily disproved bullshit.

Why hasn't it happened?

I am retired and keeping mentally active, exercising the little grey cells as Hercule Poirot would say.

It's great Steve that you are staying mentally active, but that still won't help you here.

What is your excuse?

LULZ. There were a ton of them at FF. Stick around and we might get there.

There was a lot of interesting stuff regarding astronomy at FF, but nothing proved that objects reflect light (the wavelength) that then takes a long journey through space/time ad infinitum. It goes back to whether we see in delayed time or real time, and real time will eventually be shown to be true.

 

[bilby]

Bilby tried to make it appear that pictures are different from the real thing.

I did no such thing (my bold)

I pointed out the obvious and observable fact that pictures are different from the real thing.

A picture of the Moon is not the Moon. A picture of Abraham Lincoln is not Abraham Lincoln. Poland wasn't invaded by a picture of Hitler's armies, and my breakfast was not a picture of toast and Vegemite.

Pictures are not "the real thing". This has nothing whatsoever to do with me. I didn't make it appear that this is true; Nor did I try to make it appear that this is true. I stated that this is true, based on observations I have made and that anyone can easily repeat, and I invite anybody who doubts it to test it for themselves.

By all means, find a picture of Mr Lessans, (or indeed of any person you choose) and ask it whether or not a picture is the object it represents. I predict with confidence that it will not answer you; And I assure you that if you can provide hard evidence that it does, I shall not only change my position, but shall dedicate my life to demonstrating to everyone else that a picture of a person is, in fact, and demonstrably, that actual person.

Children can easily recognize their parents from a picture or from the real thing.

So what?

The point in question is whether or not "pictures are different from the real thing". That's a direct quote. If that isn't the claim that you meant to question, then for the sake of both clarity and sanity, you should not have said that it was.

Assuming that your subsequent claim, "Children can easily recognize their parents from a picture or from the real thing", was intended to support your implication that my hypothesis ("pictures are different from the real thing") is false, we can examine how well this observation supports that implication:

Is recognisability by a child both necessary and sufficient for a picture of a parent to be the parent it depicts?

I put it to you that not only is it neither, but that you know that it is neither. A child might not recognise a picture of a parent who was wearing a disguise, for example; So recognition is not necessary.

And when the child does recognise her parent in a picture, she does not expect the picture to cuddle her, because she knows that it is just a picture; So recognition is not sufficient.

Your hypothesis - A picture is NOT different from the real thing - is easy to test; I invite you (and anybody else) to test it. I have done so, and report that it is false. You have attempted to insinuate that it is true, by observing something that is neither necessary nor sufficient to test the hypothesis at all.

But I absolutely do not want you (or anyone else) to take my word for it. Please test the hypothesis - A picture is NOT different from the real thing - for yourself. Just be careful that you are testing the hypothesis in question, and are not in fact testing an irrelevant and non-equivalent claim (eg "Children can easily recognize their parents from a picture or from the real thing"). Nobody is disputing that children can recognize pictures of their parents; In dispute is the claim that "A picture is different from the real thing".

 

[peacegirl]

Bilby tried to make it appear that pictures are different from the real thing.

I did no such thing.

You said that pictures are different than human faces (or something to that effect) so it isn't a good test.

I pointed out the obvious and observable fact that a picture is not the thing it represents.

A picture of the Moon is not the Moon. A picture of Abraham Lincoln is not Abraham Lincoln. Poland wasn't invaded by a picture of Hitler's armies, and my breakfast was not a picture of toast and Vegemite.

A child can easily recognize her mother whether it's in human form or in a representation. The light waves would still be hitting the retina and if the eyes were a sense organ, there would be no reason why an animal could not recognize his master (just like a child) from a picture, a statue, a cardboard representation, a computer screen, or anything else. This should give you pause, but it doesn't, because it's ingrained that science got it right and it's blasphemous to refute what has become "fact."

Pictures are not "the real thing". This has nothing whatsoever to do with me. I didn't make it appear that this is true; Nor did I try to make it appear that this is true. I stated that this is true, based on observations I have made and that anyone can easily repeat, and I invite anybody who doubts it to test it for themselves.

By all means, find a picture of Mr Lessans, (or indeed of any person you choose) and ask it whether or not a picture is the object it represents. I predict with confidence that it will not answer you; And I assure you that if you can provide hard evidence that it does, I shall not only change my position, but shall dedicate my life to demonstrating to everyone else that a picture of a person is, in fact, and demonstrably, that actual person.

Oh, come on. Give me a break. I'm getting a headache.

 

[steve_bank]

A pace for you Peacegirl is George Nooory's Coast To Coast AM. A nightly radio show that often has offbeat people making scientific claims. You can call in. You may find support in the show's community.

It is international.

You might be able to post an article.

Coast to Coast AM: The Best Paranormal News Show | Coast to Coast AM

Get news about the weird and bizarre on Coast to Coast AM from radio host George Noory every night!

www.coasttocoastam.com

Coast to Coast AM - Coast Insider

Get news about the weird and bizarre on Coast to Coast AM from radio host George Noory every night!

www.coasttocoastam.com

You are not going to get any traction on forums like this.