A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Thank you so much for pulling the bullshit out of them (including me).

Are you sure you got done trying to find out what they really mean, or did you just decide that what they were doing had no value to it?

[Vivisectus]

Double Poast!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Could you explain that?

All this means is that an infant's brain needs stimulation from the other senses in order to focus the eyes. It does not have to be all four senses, so if the baby was deaf there are other types of stimulation that would cause the brain to desire to see what it is experiencing, such as touch, smell, and taste.

p. 113 If a newborn infant
was not permitted to have any sense experiences, the brain would
never desire to focus the eyes to look through them at the external
world no matter how much light was present. Consequently, even
though the eyelids were removed, and even if many colorful objects
were placed in front of the baby, he could never see because the brain
is not looking. 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. We
need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, that efferent vision requires light to be at the retina instantly does not make it possible, or excuse you from explaining how it gets there.

And if efferent vision does not separate light from the object, then it is wrong. Because light is separate from objects. They are not one unit.

But it is at the retina. The distance that you are thinking from the celestial body to Earth is millions of miles. From the eyes to the object, it's not millions of miles. It's a relatively small distance, and our eyes fall within that optical range.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do the eyes negate physical distance? Define optical range as you are using it and describe how the eyes are "in" it

You have to always bear in mind what is required in the efferent account. For now, take out of the equation how far away something is and think in terms of the object being in optical range. If it is a million miles away but is large enough to be seen by the naked eye or a telescope, then it meets the requirements just as something smaller but closer to us would meet the same requirement.

Optical range is the ability of our eyes to see an object, however far away or close that object is.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So the optical range means simply "what we can see"?

Yes, it is the physical substance that we can see because "it" is within our field of view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is the material substance that makes up the world.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does the pronoun "it" refer to?

Anything that has physical matter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the efferent account, it is obvious that if our eyes are in the optical range the object will be seen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If optical range means "what we can see", then yes, if we can see something it can be seen. This is circular.

Saying that we see what is within our field of view is not circular. I am trying to distinguish between the afferent account that says we are receiving images from traveling light, and the efferent account that says we are seeing the real object because it's within our visual range.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is also a description of a state of being, we can see what can be seen, not an explanation of a mechanism.

Yes, it's a description of what is believed to be going on with the eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-absorbed light will be at the retina as a mirror image, which is instant and does not involve time. That's the difference between light being a condition rather than a cause.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have only stated that we can see what can be seen instantly. This is the assertion you're being asked to explain and support.

Can you try to come up with a mechanism at all? Draw a diagram or something?

We're back to square one. I told you that these were his observations, and he gave his reasons. You're ignoring them and calling them assertions just like you did with his observations regarding man's will. They are not mere assertions. I also said they can be tested further. As far as a diagram, that is a good idea but I don't have the program to do that. Just picture anything within one's field of view as a box. Picture a person at one side of the box and the object on the far side. Then picture the exact photons on the retina in exactly the way it is seen from the position of the person in reference to the object. Maybe that will help you understand why time or distance is not a factor in this account.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

You are failing to understand that regardless of whether or not a signal is efferent or afferent it still needs to be sent, and that involves time. Even if you were right, which you are not, you would still need time for your efferent signal to reach the object it is trying to see, unless you magically transport your brain signal to the object of its desire and magically transport it back to assess what it visually encountered. I tried to draw it for you so you'd see the trajectory time and did the drawings as if you were right. Even if your vision is unlike anyone elses and is brain originated, it still needs to travel to the thing it sees. And then it needs to travel back. So you effective/efferently doubled the time it takes to see. If your efferent vision stops at your eyeball you still need the image to get to your eyeball so you would only be eliminating the reaction time, and science has proven that the brain actually takes longer to react to vision than anything else so they really... especially... without a doubt... proved you wrong. But if they hadn't, you'd still be dealing with time.

If you open your eyes and see an object, it's there instantly. Interpreting what one sees may take a milisecond, but that's not the issue we're discussing. We're discussing the function of light in these two different accounts. One says we never see the present, only the past, due to the finite speed of light. The other says that the pattern of light that is at the retina did not get there through traveling, therefore we see the present as it is NOW. You are going off onto a tangent just because you want to confuse the conversation with extraneous stuff that has no bearing on anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are pointedly refusing to answer pertinent questions, peacegirl, which is frustrating. They are repetitive because you won't answer them. If you answer they need not be repeated.

You regularly use all caps and bullying words when you get frustrated too. Quit playing the victim.

Yes, but there's a big difference. I didn't start this nasty game. I am retaliating against the unfair attacks that have been gaining momentum since day one. And please stop being so childish, according to Spacemonkey, by repeating what I say verbatim. And btw, I never made my words as big as Spacemonkey's. He wasn't trying to get my attention; he was yelling at the top of his lungs.

[LadyShea]

Can you define and explain "large enough"? You seem to be saying nothing more than "if it is large enough to be seen, it can be seen". That is circular as it says "If x then x"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it is the physical substance that we can see because "it" is within our field of view.

What is the physical substance? Does the word "it" refer to "optical range"?

Are you saying "Optical range is the physical substance that we can see because the physical substance that we can see is within our field of view"?

The word "range" doesn't usually have anything to do with physical substance. Are you sure you are defining optical range above?

What is the difference between optical range and field of view?

But you were defining optical range. Where did physical matter come from in this explanation?

It's confusing if you use pronouns, like "it" when you haven't used the proper noun in the same piece of writing to understand what "it" refers to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Saying that we see what is within our field of view is not circular.

If you define "field of view" and/or "optical range" as "what can be seen" then yes, it is circular. Using that definition the sentence can be rewritten as "we see what can be seen" or we x what we x. That is circular.

Do you have a different definition of filed of view or optical range to offer to make it not a tautology?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your big letters don't scare me Spacemonkey. Your questions are repetitive and you are becoming a bully.

The big letters aren't meant to scare. They were for emphasis. Of course the questions are repetitive. I have repeated them because you keep unreasonably refusing to answer them. How am I being a bully by expecting you to answer simple Yes or No questions about your own claims? Can you explain why you are not answering them? Better yet, can you just try answering them:

1. Were these mirror image photons always at the retina?

2. Did they come into existence there as newly existing photons?

3. Are they photons that came from the Sun?

You keep telling me I don't understand and that I just don't get it, but how am I meant to understand you when you won't answer my questions about what you are saying?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The other says that the pattern of light that is at the retina did not get there through traveling, therefore we see the present as it is NOW.

So how did it get there? Either it was always there, came into existence there, or somehow got there from somewhere else. Which of these are you claiming?

[Vivisectus]

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

What is that bit doing there? Saying "Furthermore, and quite revealing" suggests this is something that has been tested and observed to be true. But it hasn't: it is just something he is predicting would be true if he was right.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you open your eyes and see an object, it's there instantly. Interpreting what one sees may take a milisecond, but that's not the issue we're discussing. We're discussing the function of light in these two different accounts. One says we never see the present, only the past, due to the finite speed of light. The other says that the pattern of light that is at the retina did not get there through traveling, therefore we see the present as it is NOW. You are going off onto a tangent just because you want to confuse the conversation with extraneous stuff that has no bearing on anything.

Yes, but when we were discussing how the part about sight would perhaps be best left out you said that sight being instant needed to stay as it was an important part of what he was saying about not-reincarnation and how there is only now, or something like that. As if a direct experience of an objective NOW was required somehow. but even if sight is efferent, we do not HAVE such a direct experience of an absolute now through sight just because of the delay Koan mentioned.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Saying that we see what is within our field of view is not circular. I am trying to distinguish between the afferent account that says we are receiving images from traveling light, and the efferent account that says we are seeing the real object because it's within our visual range.

Then you will always fail, for the afferent account also says that we see real objects because they are within our visual range. The difference is that when the afferent account makes this claim it is not an empty tautology. It can be explained by explaining how we create images from the properties of the light which has traveled to our eyes.

If you say we can see what is within our visual range, and that visual range means just the range at which we can see things, then all you've said is that we can see things when they can be seen. That is a trivial tautology which doesn't explain anything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just picture anything within one's field of view as a box. Picture a person at one side of the box and the object on the far side. Then picture the exact photons on the retina in exactly the way it is seen from the position of the person in reference to the object. Maybe that will help you understand why time or distance is not a factor in this account.

That doesn't help us at all unless you can explain how these photons at the retina got to be there. Where did they come from? How did they get to be at the retina without traveling there? Were these same photons ever emitted by the object or reflected from its surface? Were they ever anywhere other than the retina, or did they just pop into existence at its surface inside the eye? These are the questions that need to be answered before efferent vision will make any sense.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but there's a big difference. I didn't start this nasty game. I am retaliating against the unfair attacks that have been gaining momentum since day one.

Hmm, who was it that called me a "bitter individual" and "too angry to communicate with" on the actual day one?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And please stop being so childish, according to Spacemonkey, by repeating what I say verbatim.

What are you referring to?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And btw, I never made my words as big as Spacemonkey's.

LOL you probably don't know how to change the font size.

Anyway if we're competing for dramatic points, you've compared your experience here to being gang raped, crucified, and burned at the stake.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He wasn't trying to get my attention; he was yelling at the top of his lungs.

Uh, metaphorically, yes. So? You have refused to answer these questions for months.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

They are repetitive because you just repeat them, expecting a different result. That's not a good definition of insanity, that's a good definition of ignorance. Try asking them in a different way. If Lessans made an important observation and peacegirl correctly describes to the best of her abilities (throw a stone if you've ever managed to do that) what it is not about, you need to ask your questions differently.

A koan, for example, doesn't have an answer at first, no matter how hard you try. At least it seems that way. But the bomb is ticking somewhere, in some way, working on the solution, and the solution is to remove category paradoxes, which I define to mean something like apparent category errors that can be resolved by generalization which is not possible if you keep using and reusing the same concepts in the usual way. Instead, you try and try and try to find a solution until you notice the hole where an idea is missing, and then it explodes. To achieve that, you need to take the questions seriously and keep asking yourself. Notice that peacegirl has been doing that all along and has filled a lot of gaps in the process, which is not too easy I guess. You're not trying because you have decided in advance that there is nothing of value to be found.

How exactly that works needs further testing, for example we have no idea what consciousness is or what the brain does or doesn't do that has anything to do with that. That and the interpretation of our "physical" "laws". The question if biological systems can do quantum computation, which is almost true by definition, but needs to be clarified. What exactly happens to brains and their various quantum fields when neurons stop firing.

She gets more than enough of that passive-aggressive worrying about your mental health claptrap. I think she gets much more than you, but she has gotten used to it.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that people in here have already made up their minds that this work has nothing of value, which is why they aren't really interested in finding out whether Lessans' observations have any merit. They are treating his observations like junk, which is really sad.

[LadyShea]

You've had 2 years to make the case that his "observations" have merit. You've been unable to do so. You can't answer questions, so you get angry and histrionic and increasingly evasive.

Try answering the basic questions you've been asked about where light is located at in your model, and what properties it needs to have to be located there.

Try explaining how Lessans observed the workings of conscience in the new world, when it does not yet exist?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But, these questions have been asked in multiple different ways. I ask questions differently than Spacemoneky does, I try to use different analogies. They still don't get answered.

You are a liar LadyShea. Now I'm going to use your language. Don't you tell me that I have not answered your questions to the best of my ability. I have literally cut and pasted sections out of the book that I believed would help you understand. And what do you do? You tell me I haven't answered your questions. I don't know what you want from me. I have gone over and over his observations as far as why we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. I showed you where his observations and reasoning originated, and you turn around and tell me that it's circular because he states that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, therefore anything we do is in this direction. I'm sorry but maybe it's you that doesn't have the capacity to understand this law. You can't in all fairness put all the blame on Lessans.

As far as the eyes, I'm also doing the best I can to explain what he meant. All I get though are angry retuations along with being called mentally ill, ignorant, a liar, etc. If I had known what I was going to have to go through in this thread, I would never have joined.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have been direct in all my dealings with her. peacegirl, on the other hand, has evaded, used persecution and martyr language, and speculated on everything from my childhood to my experiences with alternative medicine to change the subject. She comes here voluntarily despite considering everyone here as ignorant, closed minded, etc. and despite her repeated admissions that she is wasting her time here.

I am sorry but I do feel persecuted at times. I feel completely misunderstood and treated as if I'm wrong just for believing that my father was right. Well too bad. I am not a martyr and I never claimed to be so I don't know where you get that from.

One time I asked you about your childhood because I wanted to get an idea of where you were coming from, and you're making a mountain out of it. It certainly wasn't to change the subject. If anyone, you are the one that goes off onto tangents all the time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you want to white knight her, that's your prerogative, but she is the passive aggressive one and you will now be asked to continue defending her against all us bullies.

Just because But defended me one time, you're now making him the bad guy? I am very appreciative that he is seeing the errors in some of your arguments, and he pulled you up on it. That is fair play.

I am frustrated with the attacks; I am not passive/aggressive as you claim. I hope that But continues to defend me if he sees something said that is unfair. I have had no one to defend me at all, and it starts to wear you down to the point where you feel there's no hope of getting across your ideas.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

**In this post I used language similar to how Lessans explained movement in the direction of greater satisfaction, to help peacegirl understand the question.

Because you cannot make this analogy in the case of the eyes, that's why. Now you are scrambling words together from two different discoveries, and you think that's helping the situation?

[LadyShea]

I have literally cut and pasted sections out of the book that I believed would help you understand. And what do you do? You tell me I haven't answered your questions. I don't know what you want from me.

I want answers to my questions, not responses unrelated to the questions I ask.

If I ask you to describe the mechanism by which you come to be sitting in the chair, what would your answer be?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you cannot make this analogy in the case of the eyes, that's why. Now you are scrambling words together from two different discoveries, and you think that's helping the situation?

Sure I can make the analogy because we are talking about light, not eyes. Unless the eyes somehow change the properties of light. Is that the case in efferent vision?

[LadyShea]

I am not making But a bad guy at all, I was letting him know what he can expect to happen now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

You go tell that to it when you have the time. I can't do that, I have to kill the Buddha. I've sort of figured out how my god works, but that's not going to be of much use to you, I'm afraid.

I like the Buddha. Don't kill him, he's cute and cuddly.

I truly respect you for calling Spacemonkey out on his bullying. It is so tough for me to fight against established truth. It's like David fighting Goliath and it's almost impossible. Whether you believe that there is something to this claim or not, at this point it's irrelevant because this is about trying to establish the plausibility of this claim. Thank you so much for pulling people out on their bullshit.

Originally Posted by But

Thank you so much for pulling the bullshit out of them (including me). I didn't really notice it before. You're not the only one, there are a lot of parallel threads at work here , but it has helped.

I'm glad you noticed, and it helped.

This is one of the first breaks I have ever had in this thread.

Originally Posted by But

I'm trying to figure out what the break means. It's a play on words, like everything in this multiverse is. There is a chain fraction, which is reversed, and the wordplay results in a fractured chain. I'm not sure what that means, can you elaborate? I know this sounds crazy, but they can get lost if they want to miss the endgame.

I think the endgame has already been missed.

There were others but they never led to anything substantial.

Originally Posted by But

Who were they?

Too many to count.

That is how strong scientific consensus can be.

Originally Posted by But

Or concensus, as you correctly slipped.

Hey, if you can't beat em, join em.

I am begging you to please not ruin it by attacking me and denying that you agree with me due to group think. I know you aren't sure, so there's no point in making this an issue. Once again, I know you are not endorsing Lessans, but at least you are listening. For that I am grateful.

Originally Posted by But

Why should I ruin it? I've already lost because I had the first laugh as far as I can tell.. or maybe not.

You only lose when the fat lady sings.

Originally Posted by But

Lessans made a mistake that someone else I uh.. know made, namely to insist on unqualified statements (I'm not talking to you Dragar, it's another physicist or whatever). Lessans said that the eyes are not a sense organ period. That's what people reject (which is not very smart). But even my god or maybe other gods make unqualified statements, like "Let there be light and there was light" or something like that, LOL. But on the other hand, that's not necessarily a mistake.. uh..

No, I don't think it's a mistake. God was just turning the lights on, or something like that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What is that bit doing there? Saying "Furthermore, and quite revealing" suggests this is something that has been tested and observed to be true. But it hasn't: it is just something he is predicting would be true if he was right.

He was using that example to clarify what would happen based on his astute observations. And, according to his observations, his reasoning is sound.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure I can make the analogy because we are talking about light, not eyes. Unless the eyes somehow change the properties of light. Is that the case in efferent vision?

But I'm talking about eyes which changes the entire phenomenon. Lessans never said light doesn't travel at a finite speed, but this does not relate to the efferent position, so when you say his claim changes the properties of light, that's a false accusation. All he said was that the EYES are not a sense organ. That makes light a condition of sight, not a cause. Although our eyes detect light, that is not the only thing necessary for vision.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you tell me that I have not answered your questions to the best of my ability.

You haven't. You've merely evaded everyone's questions to the best of your ability. It is not beyond your ability to answer a simple Yes, No, or I don't know to straightforward Yes or No questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I had known what I was going to have to go through in this thread, I would never have joined.

That's not true. You knew what to expect because you had years of experience receiving the exact same responses and treatment in other threads at previous websites. And you also know what you will face if you stay here, yet you still willingly choose to stay.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am sorry but I do feel persecuted at times. I feel completely misunderstood and treated as if I'm wrong just for believing that my father was right.

It's not just that you believe your father. It's that you do so without evidence or rational grounds, and that you do so in the face of all contrary evidence, and while refusing to answer reasonable questions about your own claims and position. You have been completely unreasonable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have had no one to defend me at all, and it starts to wear you down to the point where you feel there's no hope of getting across your ideas.

But you're not trying to get your ideas across. If you were then you'd be happy to answer our questions about those ideas. But you keep refusing to do so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I want answers to my questions, not responses unrelated to the questions I ask.

If I ask you to describe the mechanism by which you come to be sitting in the chair, what would your answer be?

I am trying my best to explain why light is at the eye in the efferent account, but you are asking for the impossible because I cannot give you the exact mechanism as to how the brain uses the eyes to see the external world. But that doesn't mean he was wrong in his analysis. If the eyes work the way Lessans described, then the outcome is going to be the opposite of the afferent account. You are stuck in the afferent mode of thinking which will not allow me to make any headway whatsoever because you want me to fit a square peg into a round hole, and that can't be done.