|
|
01-27-2016, 02:36 PM
|
|
Now in six dimensions!
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The second the light changed, the green wavelengths would be at the retina allowing the brain to see the green light. The optic nerve is the connection between the brain, eyes, and the external world but does not send red impulses before green causing a delay.
|
How does light of green wavelength get to the retina before it has had time to get there from the traffic light by traveling? Where did it come from?
|
HOW???? THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT OF VISION.
|
Magic!
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
|
01-27-2016, 02:50 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
I liked it better when lenses focused out to get an image. I am also disappointed that we are no longer creating a growing list of evidence which shows how relevant the book is.
|
01-27-2016, 03:03 PM
|
|
Now in six dimensions!
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Yeah, that stuff about the object creating a 'mirror image' and the light acting as a 'conduit' was a pretty fun world salad.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
|
01-27-2016, 04:58 PM
|
|
liar in wolf's clothing
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The second the light changed, the green wavelengths would be at the retina allowing the brain to see the green light. The optic nerve is the connection between the brain, eyes, and the external world but does not send red impulses before green causing a delay.
|
How does light of green wavelength get to the retina before it has had time to get there from the traffic light by traveling? Where did it come from?
|
HOW???? THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT OF VISION.
|
Magic!
|
It's the magic of imagination; if you can just accept the (obviously, ludicrously, totally) counterfactual case as the factual case, then all the tension between the counterfactual case and the enormous body of knowledge that informs against it just disappears, like so many pixels into a dog's brain.
|
01-27-2016, 06:32 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
HOW???? THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT OF VISION.
|
Magic!
|
Yes, that's just another word for efferent vision, PFM.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
01-27-2016, 06:35 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The second the light changed, the green wavelengths would be at the retina allowing the brain to see the green light. The optic nerve is the connection between the brain, eyes, and the external world but does not send red impulses before green causing a delay.
|
How does light of green wavelength get to the retina before it has had time to get there from the traffic light by traveling? Where did it come from?
|
We're back to square one. I told you it doesn't have to get there. It's already there the instant we see the object. You keep thinking that light has to travel to get there which would cause a delay. That is the afferent model in a nutshell. You just can't get beyond it.
|
01-27-2016, 07:15 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The second the light changed, the green wavelengths would be at the retina allowing the brain to see the green light. The optic nerve is the connection between the brain, eyes, and the external world but does not send red impulses before green causing a delay.
|
How does light of green wavelength get to the retina before it has had time to get there from the traffic light by traveling? Where did it come from?
|
HOW???? THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT OF VISION.
|
Magic!
|
And what's wrong with that? "Efferent vision is true because efferent vision is true" has the virtue of simplicity, and simple is good! Besides, I have yet to see any logic textbook that declares Argumentum ad Harebrained Uppercase Decree an informal fallacy, so there!
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
01-27-2016, 07:29 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF
It's the magic of imagination; if you can just accept the (obviously, ludicrously, totally) counterfactual case as the factual case, then all the tension between the counterfactual case and the enormous body of knowledge that informs against it just disappears, like so many pixels into a dog's brain.
|
And the sooner we buy into the obviously, ludicrously and totally counterfactual case, the sooner we can get on with implementing the Lessantonian vision of perfectly cooked spaghetti and meatballs every Monday night, translucent fuck garments and banging on the dinner table (provided no children are present [even though refraining from banging on the dinner table just because children are present would effectively constitute blaming the young 'uns for wanting to watch]).
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
01-27-2016, 09:58 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The second the light changed, the green wavelengths would be at the retina allowing the brain to see the green light. The optic nerve is the connection between the brain, eyes, and the external world but does not send red impulses before green causing a delay.
|
How does light of green wavelength get to the retina before it has had time to get there from the traffic light by traveling? Where did it come from?
|
HOW???? THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT OF VISION. YOU ARE TRAPPED IN THE AFFERENT ACCOUNT. WHAT A JOKE!
|
Naming your account doesn't answer the question. Nor does blaming your questioner for your own lack of an answer.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
01-27-2016, 10:00 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The second the light changed, the green wavelengths would be at the retina allowing the brain to see the green light. The optic nerve is the connection between the brain, eyes, and the external world but does not send red impulses before green causing a delay.
|
How does light of green wavelength get to the retina before it has had time to get there from the traffic light by traveling? Where did it come from?
|
We're back to square one. I told you it doesn't have to get there. It's already there the instant we see the object. You keep thinking that light has to travel to get there which would cause a delay. That is the afferent model in a nutshell. You just can't get beyond it.
|
How can these green photons be at the retina at a given time if they never travelled there or arrived there? Are they instantly coming into existence at the retina as the traffic light changes to green?
This would be a whole lot easier if you would just answer my five questions.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
01-27-2016, 10:01 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
STOP THE BS!!!
|
Stop the lies and evasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I have said that the photons are at the retina if the conditions of efferent vision are met.
|
This part of YOUR account is what these questions are asking you about. They are not based on the afferent account, and do not make any afferent assumptions. Please answer them from the efferent perspective based only on your own account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film or retina on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.
You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
Are they traveling photons?
Did they come from the Sun?
Did they get to the film by traveling?
Did they travel at the speed of light?
Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the film/retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film/retina at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.
|
|
Five words and you're done. Is that so hard?
|
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
01-27-2016, 10:21 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The second the light changed, the green wavelengths would be at the retina allowing the brain to see the green light. The optic nerve is the connection between the brain, eyes, and the external world but does not send red impulses before green causing a delay.
|
How does light of green wavelength get to the retina before it has had time to get there from the traffic light by traveling? Where did it come from?
|
We're back to square one. I told you it doesn't have to get there. It's already there the instant we see the object. You keep thinking that light has to travel to get there which would cause a delay. That is the afferent model in a nutshell. You just can't get beyond it.
|
How can these green photons be at the retina at a given time if they never travelled there or arrived there? Are they instantly coming into existence at the retina as the traffic light changes to green?
This would be a whole lot easier if you would just answer my five questions.
|
I've said this many times; this is not teleportation. The frequency/wavelength is there instantly when we see the object because there is nothing in the light that is traveling with the information apart from the object itself. We are able to see the object in real time due to light's presence not because light had to get to us which would mean there was a delay.
|
01-27-2016, 10:25 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The second the light changed, the green wavelengths would be at the retina allowing the brain to see the green light. The optic nerve is the connection between the brain, eyes, and the external world but does not send red impulses before green causing a delay.
|
How does light of green wavelength get to the retina before it has had time to get there from the traffic light by traveling? Where did it come from?
|
HOW???? THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT OF VISION. YOU ARE TRAPPED IN THE AFFERENT ACCOUNT. WHAT A JOKE!
|
Naming your account doesn't answer the question. Nor does blaming your questioner for your own lack of an answer.
|
I'm not blaming you but I can't keep saying 4 is the answer to 2 plus 2 and you keep telling me to prove it because you believe it's 5.
|
01-27-2016, 10:27 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF
It's the magic of imagination; if you can just accept the (obviously, ludicrously, totally) counterfactual case as the factual case, then all the tension between the counterfactual case and the enormous body of knowledge that informs against it just disappears, like so many pixels into a dog's brain.
|
And the sooner we buy into the obviously, ludicrously and totally counterfactual case, the sooner we can get on with implementing the Lessantonian vision of perfectly cooked spaghetti and meatballs every Monday night, translucent fuck garments and banging on the dinner table (provided no children are present [even though refraining from banging on the dinner table just because children are present would effectively constitute blaming the young 'uns for wanting to watch]).
|
You are so damn confused it's laughable!
|
01-27-2016, 10:28 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The second the light changed, the green wavelengths would be at the retina allowing the brain to see the green light. The optic nerve is the connection between the brain, eyes, and the external world but does not send red impulses before green causing a delay.
|
How does light of green wavelength get to the retina before it has had time to get there from the traffic light by traveling? Where did it come from?
|
We're back to square one. I told you it doesn't have to get there. It's already there the instant we see the object. You keep thinking that light has to travel to get there which would cause a delay. That is the afferent model in a nutshell. You just can't get beyond it.
|
How can these green photons be at the retina at a given time if they never travelled there or arrived there? Are they instantly coming into existence at the retina as the traffic light changes to green?
This would be a whole lot easier if you would just answer my five questions.
|
I've said this many times; this is not teleportation. The frequency/wavelength is there instantly when we see the object because there is nothing in the light that is traveling with the information apart from the object itself. We are able to see the object in real time due to light's presence not because light had to get to us which would mean there was a delay.
|
You're just repeating that the green photons are there, but you are not answering the question: Are they coming into existence at the retina as the traffic light turns green or not?
Let's suppose you are right that green photons are at the retina instantly as soon as the traffic light turns green, and that these photons did not arrive from anywhere else...
Now, where and when did these green photons begin to exist?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
01-27-2016, 10:30 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Naming your account doesn't answer the question. Nor does blaming your questioner for your own lack of an answer.
|
I'm not blaming you but I can't keep saying 4 is the answer to 2 plus 2 and you keep telling me to prove it because you believe it's 5.
|
False analogy. It's more like I'm asking for the answer to 2 + 2, and you are responding: THE ANSWER'S MATHS ALRIGHT?!?! NOW LEAVE ME ALONE!
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
01-27-2016, 10:43 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The frequency/wavelength is there instantly when we see the object because there is nothing in the light that is traveling with the information apart from the object itself. We are able to see the object in real time due to light's presence not because light had to get to us which would mean there was a delay.
|
So the image of the object is at the eye instantly when we look at the object, and light with the information about the object doesn't bring anything except the object itself to the eye. We see the object because there is light at the object, but the image of the object doesn't travel to the eyes with the light. I suppose that to someone who had no knowledge about vision and optics this might make some sense, odd I've just described Lessans and Peacegirl.
What about an object that we are not looking at directly, an object in our peripheral vision, is the image of that object instantly at our eyes or does the image need to travel in the light.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
01-28-2016, 11:27 AM
|
|
what's with all the roman numerals everywhere
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Peacegirl, if you have answered spacemonkey's 5 questions could you please link me to that post? I've read several thousand of posts in this thread but haven't come across the one of immediate interest. Thanks.
L.
|
01-28-2016, 02:55 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrical
Peacegirl, if you have answered spacemonkey's 5 questions could you please link me to that post? I've read several thousand of posts in this thread but haven't come across the one of immediate interest. Thanks.
L.
|
L, there was a long discussion that anyone with the ability to access it could. To me this sounds like a manipulation. Sorry. The bottom line is the claim he made regarding the eyes is not the most important claim. People could care less about the claim that can prevent war and crime. Go figure.
|
01-28-2016, 02:56 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The frequency/wavelength is there instantly when we see the object because there is nothing in the light that is traveling with the information apart from the object itself. We are able to see the object in real time due to light's presence not because light had to get to us which would mean there was a delay.
|
So the image of the object is at the eye instantly when we look at the object, and light with the information about the object doesn't bring anything except the object itself to the eye. We see the object because there is light at the object, but the image of the object doesn't travel to the eyes with the light. I suppose that to someone who had no knowledge about vision and optics this might make some sense, odd I've just described Lessans and Peacegirl.
What about an object that we are not looking at directly, an object in our peripheral vision, is the image of that object instantly at our eyes or does the image need to travel in the light.
|
I can't even stomach what you write. You're a jerk!!!!!!!!!!!
|
01-28-2016, 02:59 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Naming your account doesn't answer the question. Nor does blaming your questioner for your own lack of an answer.
|
I'm not blaming you but I can't keep saying 4 is the answer to 2 plus 2 and you keep telling me to prove it because you believe it's 5.
|
False analogy. It's more like I'm asking for the answer to 2 + 2, and you are responding: THE ANSWER'S MATHS ALRIGHT?!?! NOW LEAVE ME ALONE!
|
NOT! YOU KNOW THAT'S NOT HOW I'M RESPONDING BUT YOU WILL TURN ANY ANALOGY INTO SOMETHING THAT SUITS YOU. This will not go on!!!!
|
01-28-2016, 03:19 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This will not go on!!!!
|
Of course it will. Remember when you returned from your recent four-day hiatus and announced that you'd no longer participate in any discussions about vision? How did that work out?
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
01-28-2016, 04:10 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This will not go on!!!!
|
Of course it will. Remember when you returned from your recent four-day hiatus and announced that you'd no longer participate in any discussions about vision? How did that work out?
|
You can't stop taking things out of context, can you? You will protect your way of thinking at any cost, no matter how sneaky and unethical you are.
Last edited by peacegirl; 01-28-2016 at 04:21 PM.
|
01-28-2016, 04:12 PM
|
|
what's with all the roman numerals everywhere
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrical
Peacegirl, if you have answered spacemonkey's 5 questions could you please link me to that post? I've read several thousand of posts in this thread but haven't come across the one of immediate interest. Thanks.
L.
|
L, there was a long discussion that anyone with the ability to access it could. To me this sounds like a manipulation. Sorry. The bottom line is the claim he made regarding the eyes is not the most important claim. People could care less about the claim that can prevent war and crime. Go figure.
|
I'm not sure what you mean with your comment about manipulation, given I'm a newcomer to this thread and my request is reasonable. I'd like to see your answers. Are you referring to this recent discussion? Do you expect me to read this entire thread?
|
01-28-2016, 04:20 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrical
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrical
Peacegirl, if you have answered spacemonkey's 5 questions could you please link me to that post? I've read several thousand of posts in this thread but haven't come across the one of immediate interest. Thanks.
L.
|
L, there was a long discussion that anyone with the ability to access it could. To me this sounds like a manipulation. Sorry. The bottom line is the claim he made regarding the eyes is not the most important claim. People could care less about the claim that can prevent war and crime. Go figure.
|
I'm not sure what you mean with your comment about manipulation, given I'm a newcomer to this thread and my request is reasonable. I'd like to see your answers. Are you referring to this recent discussion? Do you expect me to read this entire thread?
|
No Lyrical, I don't expect you to read the entire thread, nor should you expect me to search through this entire thread to show you where I answered these questions. If you are truly interested, like you say you are (and you're not just playing me), then go to Amazon and read the sample. If it sounds interesting you can buy the ebook, which will give you a much better understanding of the claims this author made, and the reasons for them.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 29 (0 members and 29 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 PM.
|
|
|
|