A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

All I can do is give you the reasoning and observations that led him to these conclusions. I want to stop this part of the discussion for now because the answers are not going to be found in this thread, and because I think the discussion has ran its course.

What reasoning is this? All we have seen so far is that 1) it is handy because it fits into Lessans imaginary system and 2) some common misconceptions about dog and infant sight.

Claims I have seen - wide and sweeping ones, and ones that have far-reaching consequences for physics should they be true. This is why these things are being pointed out to you. Also, this:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

There is a problem with these two opposite thought systems. Science believes objects reflect light, and Lessans' believed light reflects objects or the material world. Yes, it's true that light itself can be seen (the visible spectrum) under certain atmospheric conditions, but if he is right, objects absorb light so we can see what exists in the real world; objects don't reflect images that light brings to our eyes.

Is absolute meaningless waffle. "Light reflects objects or the material world" is a meaningless phrase, unless you are imagining that light makes actual objects bounce around the universe. It is typical of the book as well - it is filled with bombastic phrases like this that, to the author, sound impressive but lack real meaning.

Objects do not reflect images, and light does not bring images: this kind of imprecise use of language is precisely what makes your thinking and the book such a muddle. Objects reflect light. This light is detected by the rods and cones of the retina, or the sensor of a camera. The pattern of different colors and brightnesses that individual sensors / rods and cones detect is then translated into an image.

Many types of eyes and cameras use lenses, but not all. Insects can see without lenses, and pinhole cameras generate images without a lens as well.

This is the accepted mechanism. If you want to propose a different mechanism then that is fine, but so far you have not done anything of the kind: you have merely presented a claim. A claim that is supported by neither evidence nor a theoretical mechanism by which it is supposed to work. All you support it with is the fact that your father said it was so, and some common misconceptions about dog and infant sight - misconceptions that, even if they were true, do not strongly support his version of sight in the first place.

In short - there is no reason to assume your father was right, or even remotely on the right track. There is just a lot of muddled thinking, grandiose verbiage and broad, sweeping claims. This is the reason you remain unable to reduce these ideas to simple and precise explanations.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a matter of faith when something is proven scientifically. I believe Lessans did prove something that can be empirically tested (which relies on science), and that's why I don't call Lessans' observations faith.

But "can be empirically tested" is NOT "is proven scientifically". This is your appeal to non-existent (doesn't currently exist) future proof.

Many people think some stories from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other religious texts will be proven to have actually happened via archaeological finds and scientific evidence (Noah's Flood and The Exodus for well known examples). This doesn't mean these stories have been proven scientifically, though they can be. If they are believed to be true right now, it is a matter of faith only.

The difference between possible and actual, peacegirl, it is large.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

All I can do is give you the reasoning and observations that led him to these conclusions. I want to stop this part of the discussion for now because the answers are not going to be found in this thread, and because I think the discussion has ran its course.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What reasoning is this? All we have seen so far is that 1) it is handy because it fits into Lessans imaginary system and 2) some common misconceptions about dog and infant sight.

Claims I have seen - wide and sweeping ones, and ones that have far-reaching consequences for physics should they be true. This is why these things are being pointed out to you. Also, this:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

There is a problem with these two opposite thought systems. Science believes objects reflect light, and Lessans' believed light reflects objects or the material world. Yes, it's true that light itself can be seen (the visible spectrum) under certain atmospheric conditions, but if he is right, objects absorb light so we can see what exists in the real world; objects don't reflect images that light brings to our eyes.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Is absolute meaningless waffle. "Light reflects objects or the material world" is a meaningless phrase, unless you are imagining that light makes actual objects bounce around the universe. It is typical of the book as well - it is filled with bombastic phrases like this that, to the author, sound impressive but lack real meaning.

Objects do not reflect images, and light does not bring images: this kind of imprecise use of language is precisely what makes your thinking and the book such a muddle. Objects reflect light. This light is detected by the rods and cones of the retina, or the sensor of a camera. The pattern of different colors and brightnesses that individual sensors / rods and cones detect is then translated into an image.

If light reflects the material world, the same conditions exist that exist with afferent vision, therefore rods and cones of the retina are still using light to see the object. A sensor of a camera still uses pixels on a charge-coupled device, so there is no problem there.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Many types of eyes and cameras use lenses, but not all. Insects can see without lenses, and pinhole cameras generate images without a lens as well.

It's not so much the lens that matters, it's the fact that something acts like a lens, so it works in a similar fashion. Light goes into the pinhole, for example, but it's light that is coming from the object that is present, not something that doesn't exist anymore.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is the accepted mechanism. If you want to propose a different mechanism then that is fine, but so far you have not done anything of the kind: you have merely presented a claim. A claim that is supported by neither evidence nor a theoretical mechanism by which it is supposed to work. All you support it with is the fact that your father said it was so, and some common misconceptions about dog and infant sight - misconceptions that, even if they were true, do not strongly support his version of sight in the first place.

What do you think I've been doing this whole time? I've tried to give you a theoretical mechanism. More testing has to be done on dogs and infant sight. It's true that the results could easily be made to support the answer one is looking for. Even so, truth does exist and hopefully the truth will come out either way.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In short - there is no reason to assume your father was right, or even remotely on the right track. There is just a lot of muddled thinking, grandiose verbiage and broad, sweeping claims. This is the reason you remain unable to reduce these ideas to simple and precise explanations.

The thinking was not muddled, there was no grandiose verbiage or broad, sweeping claims, just claims that Lessans felt strongly about or he wouldn't have made them. The reason I'm unable to confirm these ideas is because I can't do more empirical testing on my own which is necessary if science is ever going to give credibility to this man. I do understand everyone's reaction. These are huge claims and it would change our way of thinking about the real world. It would not negate all of the successful technologies that have been built based on the understanding of how light works.

[ceptimus]

Here's another test of the accuracy of the afferent model, due to occur about three and a half years from now.

The NASA New Horizons mission has been aimed to fly past and photograph Pluto. To gather additional information about the size of Pluto, and its largest moon, Charon, the probe has been aimed so that the radio signal back to Earth will be occulted (blocked) first by Pluto, and later by its moon. As you can imagine, this requires some pretty accurate aiming.

The times between the events, and their likely duration has already been worked out. The probe will be travelling at over 31,000 mph. The scientists have aimed the probe based on their belief that we see Pluto where it really was about 13 hours previously. It will be interesting to see if they miss, and by how much.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But "can be empirically tested" is NOT "is proven scientifically". This is your appeal to non-existent (doesn't currently exist) future proof.

But the proof is not coming from the empirical testing; it's coming from his keen observations and the empirical testing is meant to confirm those observations. We're going back to epistemology which is the branch of philosophy that deals with questions concerning the nature, scope, and sources of knowledge.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Many people think some stories from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other religious texts will be proven to have actually happened via archaeological finds and scientific evidence (Noah's Flood and The Exodus for well known examples). This doesn't mean these stories have been proven scientifically, though they can be. If they are believed to be true right now, it is a matter of faith only.

The difference between possible and actual, peacegirl, it is large.

We're not talking here about what is possible, we are talking about what is actual. Yes, proving something like Noah's Ark scientifically would take time and effort to find the clues that would substantiate the theory that the Ark actually existed, therefore until those clues were found it would be a matter of faith. But Lessans' claims don't fit in the same category because he already found the science behind his claims through careful observations and sound reasoning which are not faith based.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care about Swartz' credentials. That should not even be part of the conversation, and for you to use that as some kind of proof is very telling. I read some of the papers. Lessans' proof has nothing to do with any of these modal fallacies. You can't stand that you could be wrong about Lessans, can you? Well you are, and it will come out whether it's in this thread or some other avenue. The truth always wins David.

Originally Posted by davidm

Just like the dishonest little shit that you are to be suggesting that I thought Swartz is right because of his credentials. I was merely introducing him to people who may not have heard of him, that's all. It's also just like your father; you and he have turned everything upside down. You both seem to feel that someone will be wrong because of their advanced credentials; and that lame-brain seventh-grade dropout pool hustlers like your father will be right because they are lame-brain seventh-grade dropout pool hustlers.

He wasn't doing the opposite; he would never have discussed credentials at all if people didn't use their credentials against him.

Originally Posted by davidm

Fuck you, peacegirl. The proof is in the pudding, as you like to say. Those articles aren't right because of the credentials of who wrote them. They are right because they correctly identify the LOGIC behind the modal fallcy that your idiot father straightforwardly commits. And so, just as he was wrong about reality, so too is he wrong about logic itself. Too fucking bad, peacegirl.

You're getting too feisty. You better watch your tongue or you're going back on ignore. I know you don't care.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

It's fairly simple, really. An actual truth is something that did in fact happen. A possible truth is something that could happen. A necessary truth is something that couldn't happen any other way no matter the circumstances.

I typed this on my computer. That is an actual truth.
It was a possible truth before I did it. It was never a necessary truth for one simple reason: there are many, many factors that could easily have prevented me from typing this, ranging from personal choices to power failure to website errors. Since it is not true that this couldn't possibly have happened any other way, it is not a necessary truth, despite the fact that it did actually happen. Hence, it is possible for a truth to be actual but not necessary.

Everything you said is true, but setting your choice in stone before it happens has nothing to do with Lessans' discovery, so I have no idea why everyone keeps bringing this up.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything you said is true, but setting your choice in stone before it happens has nothing to do with Lessans' discovery, so I have no idea why everyone keeps bringing this up.

Because Lessans' "discovery" hinges on whether actual truths are also necessary truths. He states that we must do what we did, because we did it. This is either ultimately incorrect, hence we keep returning to modal fallacies and tautologies which demonstrate why it is incorrect, or is very sloppy use of language and reason.

Is this yet another area of "his" book where your hand is heavily responsible?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light reflects the material world...

Hey, peacegirl, what does that mean? Objects bounce off light?

What do you think I've been doing this whole time?

Nothing.

I've tried to give you a theoretical mechanism.

And failed miserably. The best you can come up with is your immortal magic line: "Voila! We see!"

More testing has to be done on dogs and infant sight.

Why? Because you don't like the results achieved so far?

Shall we also do more testing on the moons of Jupiter? Well, as a matter of fact, we do, every time we look in a telescope: the results confirm delayed seeing and rule out real time seeing, while also confirming that we see light, not the "object itself," whatever that is supposed to mean.

Also, even apart from the fact that actual observations about light rule out Lessans' claims, you haven't had your feet properly held to the fire over the fact that The Lone Ranger explained to you hundreds of pages ago: The eye is not, biologically, an efferent structure. We know this from dissecting it, studying it and oberving it. How do you explain that, peacegirl? Oh, wait, I know:




Oh, and pecegirl? Remember you said you'd leave unless at least one person showed support for Lessans? Well, that did not happen. Was that another lie, that you were leaving?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the proof is not coming from the empirical testing; it's coming from his keen observations and the empirical testing is meant to confirm those observations.

This is just the kind biased testing that you are accusing others of having done. When the whole purpose of the test is to prove a hypothasis, that is the very definition of bias.

[The Lone Ranger]

Exactly.

The way honest investigators test hypotheses is by attempting to disprove them. If the hypothesis survives the attempt to disprove it, this means that we have a little more confidence that it might be correct.

[LadyShea]

Then the most you can say is that Lessans supported his claims logically or philosophically, but you cannot claim they have been proven scientifically. Because he did not use scientific methodology or means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're not talking here about what is possible, we are talking about what is actual. Yes, proving something like Noah's Ark scientifically would take time and effort to find the clues that would substantiate the theory that the Ark actually existed, therefore until those clues were found it would be a matter of faith. But Lessans' claims don't fit in the same category because he already found the science behind his claims through careful observations and sound reasoning which are not faith based.

He didn't do any science! He did no experiments, collected no data, he didn't even offer a breakdown of the sample group he observed to see if there were demographic anomalies to be corrected for (if he observed only mental institution patients, that would not be applicable to all people everywhere, for example). Nothing in his book is science based.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would not negate all of the successful technologies that have been built based on the understanding of how light works.

If vision and/or photography takes place in real time, ie: instantaneously, then our understanding of how light works, and the Theory of Relativity, are wrong

If our understanding of how light works and the Theory of Relativity are wrong, then the technologies based on those two things could not work or would not work as designed

Therefore, since these technologies do actually work as designed (everything from cameras to GPS) then our understanding of how light works and the Theory of Relativity are correct (even if incomplete, as there is more to learn) and real time/instantaneous vision and/or photgraphy is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Here's another test of the accuracy of the afferent model, due to occur about three and a half years from now.

The NASA New Horizons mission has been aimed to fly past and photograph Pluto. To gather additional information about the size of Pluto, and its largest moon, Charon, the probe has been aimed so that the radio signal back to Earth will be occulted (blocked) first by Pluto, and later by its moon. As you can imagine, this requires some pretty accurate aiming.

The times between the events, and their likely duration has already been worked out. The probe will be travelling at over 31,000 mph. The scientists have aimed the probe based on their belief that we see Pluto where it really was about 13 hours previously. It will be interesting to see if they miss, and by how much.

Thanks Ceptimus. You are one person who I trust as far as your observations, but there may be something that is amiss, that's all I am saying. The last thing I want to do is argue with your findings, because that will automatically rule Lessans' observations. It will be similar to the moons of Jupiter experiment. I appreciate your effort though. After all, you figured out the math problem that was given to Lessans. I am impressed even if this has nothing to do with anything.

[thedoc]

[quote=LadyShea;1000592]

He didn't do any science! He did no experiments, collected no data, he didn't even offer a breakdown of the sample group he observed to see if there were demographic anomalies to be corrected for (if he observed only mental institution patients, that would not be applicable to all people everywhere, for example). Nothing in his book is science based.

The best we can do at this point is to assume that Lessans observed his sales calls, and the denizens of the pool halls he hustled in, which would definately be a biased group and not at all representative of the overall population.

[peacegirl]

dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The best we can do at this point is to assume that Lessans observed his sales calls, and the denizens of the pool halls he hustled in, which would definately be a biased group and not at all representative of the overall population.

You really have to quiet down thedoc. You are much too talkative with nothing backing you up. All you are doing is mimcicking. You have not analyzed the book. Please step back so other people can talk. Thanks.

[LadyShea]

Dupe

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Very cool, but why did you explain this very real phenomena in this thread? Please tell me where it makes efferent vision wrong?

It makes real time/instantaneous vision wrong.

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The scientists have aimed the probe based on their belief that we see Pluto where it really was about 13 hours previously.

If Lessans had stuck only to "efferent" vision (looking out) and stayed away from instantaneous sight, you would be bumping hard against anatomy and physiology, only. He made claims about time though, and that's where you get stuck dealing with physics.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really have to shut up thedoc. I hate to say that but you are much too talkative with nothing backing you up. All you are doing is mimcicking. You have not analyzed the data. I forgive you, but please step back so other people can talk. Thanks.

Why don't you tell us who Lessans observed if this is not correct? If you can't provide a more detailed list of his observations, this will stand as his subject group, lacking any other possibility. Put Up or Shut Up.

Oh, FYI, I'm not going away and I'm not going to stop posting the truth as 'I see it', And that quailfier was more than Lessans was capable of, he simply didn't have the mental acuity.

[LadyShea]

thedoc is correct though. We have no idea who Lessans observed. We have no data to analyze.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Exactly.

The way honest investigators test hypotheses is by attempting to disprove them. If the hypothesis survives the attempt to disprove it, this means that we have a little more confidence that it might be correct.

But you have not disproved the hypothesis. You know why? It isn't a hypothesis. Am I supposed to agree with you because his observations haven't been established in scientific terms? If that's true, this goes all the way back to the premise. Nothing has been negated whatsoever.

[LadyShea]

Am I supposed to agree with you because his observations haven't been established in scientific terms?

You can believe he was correct until the end of time. You may even convince others of his correctness, but quit pretending that Lessans made a scientifically validatable discovery until you have some science to back that up with.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I want you to answer the fargin question

Is the Pinwheel Galaxy an object, a relic, a remnant, a clue? What is it? You can look at the image, what is it YOU think you are looking at? What is it an image of, in your opinion?

Bump

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you have not disproved the hypothesis. You know why? It isn't a hypothesis. Am I supposed to agree with you because his observations haven't been established in scientific terms? If that's true, this goes all the way back to the premise. Nothing has been negated whatsoever.

Really almost everything Lessans has said about vision has been disproved and negated by existing testing and knowledge, he has said nothing that corosponds with the existing, proven, and well established, (by empherical data), knowledge of how vision, and the eye and brain work together.