A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What about abstract representations of actual objects? How did Lessans think children learn that "cat" applies to an actual living moving furry animal and a photograph of that animal and a drawing of that animal and an animation of that animal?

There is nothing that says children can't learn from representations, but most children get a clear understanding of the word when it is first introduced with the actual object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans description made is seem like he believed there was a literal association of the word to the physical object seen, the creation of a single "cat slide", whereas language is incredibly representational and various concepts can be incorporated into one word such as ascribing "catlike" to human movements or pointy ears in another species.

I'm not disputing that, but until the child learns the word 'cat' which distinguishes the features of a cat from those of other animals, the child might call a cat a dog. My grandson pointed to a big dog when he was around 2, and said "lion" because he hadn't learn to distinguish the differences between these two animals. He just saw their similarities.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've said it umpteen times that they move forward as they are replaced by new photons, but they don't bounce and travel through space and time.

By 'moving forward' do you mean that the photons are moving away from the object? and by 'replaced' do you mean by photons at the object that will also move away from the object following the earlier photons? How can they be moving and not be traveling through 'space and time'? Everything that moves, travels through space and time, that is the definition of movement in light of relativity. By 'Bounce' do you mean reflect, if so why do you refer to a mirror image as a reflection from a mirror or off the surface of water?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true that they are moving forward, but to say that they are traveling is confusing the issue because it implies that they are traveling independent of the object, which is a fallacy.

Photons are energy, which cannot be created or destroyed, so how can they possibly be dependent on any one object?

It's not a fallacy at all unless you think photons are in some way connected to or dependent on the matter they encounter but are not absorbed by. Is this what you think?

Does walking with a crowd rather than alone change anything about you or your capabilities?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that says children can't learn from representations, but most children get a clear understanding of the word when it is first introduced with the actual object.

How many American toddlers know an elephant without ever seeing an actual elephant? Labeling actual objects is the simplest introduction to language, but it doesn't remotely describe the complexity of language acquisition.

And what of words that are not labels for objects at all?

[Vivisectus]

But the optic nerve is not part of the eye proper. That's why they said it's a misnimer to call it the optic nerve. I'm waiting to hear back from Lone Ranger on that. Lessans said that nothing other than light strikes the optic nerve. If light strikes the optic nerve then that nerve has to connect to the brain, but to say that the image, or signal, is interpreted in the brain is not conclusive by any means.

That is irrelevant, and also nonsensical. you said "if light strikes the optic nerve" (it doesn't. It striked the retina, which in turn sends impulses down the optic nerve) then the nerve has to connect to the brain - this is nonsense. Light striking something does not mean it must logically be connected to the brain.

Apart from that, we can SEE the damn thing connects to the brain

All that has nothing to do with the point, which was that Lessans had no evidence that proves that light is NOT interpreted in the way we currently think.

At most we can say: contrary to all experts, Lessans believed that the optic nerve does not carry impulses to the brain, caused by light striking the retina, which are interpreted by the brain as images. He believed that something else was going on, which led him to say that the eye does not have afferent nerve endings in it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent sight is normal sight.

Irrelevant. The point remains that even if dogs cannot recognise faces, that is merely something that is compatible with efferent sight. It is not indicative of it. It is also compatible with a theory that states sight is afferent, but that dogs are not neurologically set up to recognise them, for instance.

He is giving his observations. This model is just as valid as the afferent model because no one has proved what goes on inside of the brain.

Irrelevant, and incorrect. Once again he merely states his belief THAT it works that way. Saying that it works a certain way is not an argument in favour of it working that way. Saying that the model is just as valid is also irrelevant. I am sure that it is your opinion that this is so. But what we are investigating is why we should believe that it is correct. I have yet to find one.

The fact remains that even if he is correct about infant sight, then the same applies as with dog sight: it is not indicative that his idea is correct. It is merely compatible with it.

Originally Posted by vivsectus

These are the only things I can find that even remotely resemble arguments in favour. As you can see they are woefully inadequate.

I would like to point out that you still have not come up with an argument in favour of your fathers position.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that. From his direct observations, he made inferences which I believe were spot on.

But he does not share these direct observations of observable facts - if he made any. In fact there is no hint anywhere in the book of any of them. As such, we cannot see if they warranted the conclusions he drew. I can tell you that I have observed fairies, and then present you with a lengthy exposition about what they do all day. That does not give you any reason to assume I am correct: it merely gives you a reason to assume that I seem to believe in fairies.

I disagree that we can't see directly how children learn words. We can even see this from observing how Helen Keller associated the sign that was spelled out in her hand with the object that it described.

We could observe Helen's behaviour. We cannot directly observe how she learns words.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did exactly what a scientist does, but didn't write down his findings because he didn't start out with a hypothesis. He saw patterns in behavior as he studied and read, which led him to these findings. I am not against testing his claims.

A scientist would not present his conclusions without offering a reason to believe they are correct. So far, neither you nor the book have offered a reason to believe Lessans was correct. If this is not the case, please point out where the actual case in favour of efferent vision is made.

[Vivisectus]

oh, and

Originally Posted by vivisectus

You are pretending that the very fact that your father thought this is how sight and the learning of words worked is evidence that it works that way. However, your father's say-so does not count as evidence anywhere outside your head I am afraid. It certainly is not science.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not based on his say-so. You just didn't like him because you thought he was full of himself, which he wasn't.

Then please present the case for efferent vision. Where in the book can I find it? What does it consist of? If my objection is merely motivated by ill feelings, then surely you can prove it wrong? And if you cannot, what does my motivation have to do with anything?

Why should we believe that sight is efferent?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why should we believe that sight is efferent?

Because the great man said that it was! And, if he had noticed that he was wrong, he would have said so; but he didn't say he was wrong, so he was right! Obviously!

You need to wake up from your nap and smell the pudding, Vivisectus!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I would like to point out that you still have not come up with an argument in favour of your fathers position.

But he does not share these direct observations of observable facts - if he made any. In fact there is no hint anywhere in the book of any of them. As such, we cannot see if they warranted the conclusions he drew. I can tell you that I have observed fairies, and then present you with a lengthy exposition about what they do all day. That does not give you any reason to assume I am correct: it merely gives you a reason to assume that I seem to believe in fairies.

We could observe Helen's behaviour. We cannot directly observe how she learns words.

A scientist would not present his conclusions without offering a reason to believe they are correct. So far, neither you nor the book have offered a reason to believe Lessans was correct. If this is not the case, please point out where the actual case in favour of efferent vision is made.

What is relevant is that Lessans made several claims throughout the book of 'irrefutable facts' that have been demonstrated to be wrong. Therefore there is considerable justification in doubting that any of his other unsupported claims are true. It may not disprove his other claims but it casts doubt on his credability to make such claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Photons are energy, which cannot be created or destroyed, so how can they possibly be dependent on any one object?

The non-absorbed photons are dependent on the object in the sense that they do not travel independently of said object. If there's no object, then there's no absorbed light, and if there's no absorbed light, then there's no non-absorbed light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not a fallacy at all unless you think photons are in some way connected to or dependent on the matter they encounter but are not absorbed by. Is this what you think?

They are dependent in the sense that these non-absorbed photons are the counterpart of the absorbed photons. As I just mentioned, without the absorbed light, there is no non-absorbed light. If it's true that these non-absorbed photons do not travel through space and time, as everyone believes, then it is obvious that this light reflects the object (not the other way around) and is dependent on said object for it's very existence.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you walk out of a building and move forward 20 feet to the sidewalk and join the large crowd of people walking, did you "become" the crowd? Did you cease traveling when you "joined" the crowd?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right about that. It is movement but there is a difference in what these photons are capable of doing for the very reason that they join the crowd, which changes everything.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Does walking with a crowd rather than alone change anything about you or your capabilities?

No, it just means that my red outfit will not stand out. It will blend in with the rest of the colors in the crowd (i.e., orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How many American toddlers know an elephant without ever seeing an actual elephant? Labeling actual objects is the simplest introduction to language, but it doesn't remotely describe the complexity of language acquisition.

I'm not disputing this at all. I am just showing that without a word to describe certain differences, it would be difficult for a child to recognize the differences that distinguish one species from another.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what of words that are not labels for objects at all?

Words are used to describe substance that exists in the real world. Are you talking about abstract thinking?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

oh, and

Then please present the case for efferent vision. Where in the book can I find it? What does it consist of? If my objection is merely motivated by ill feelings, then surely you can prove it wrong? And if you cannot, what does my motivation have to do with anything?

Why should we believe that sight is efferent?

I'm not telling you to believe in efferent sight if you aren't convinced. I'm offering his observations which I believe are accurate. It's up to each individual to decide what they want to take from this. If they aren't sure that he is correct but want to give him the benefit of the doubt, then at least your mind is open enough to await further testing.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I expected you to come forward. You come out of the woodwork when you feel that Lessans is getting the upper hand. It's so predictable, but it doesn't make you right.

You are a liar. Regardless, against my better judgement, I occasionally feel the need to point out the more spectacularly idiotic of your claims.

However you want to define the eye's structure, the nerve leading into the brain is involved in the CNS. Do the other sense organs involve the central nervous system, or is it just peripheral?

Here's a clue-by-four for you. Every single nerve in the body is "involved" in the the Central Nervous System. Every single nerve in the body either originates in or ends in the CNS. Just in case that isn't sufficiently clear for you, that includes every single sensory nerve.

I'm just trying to understand.

Liar.

If that's true, then how can you use the word "nerve" in this particular conversation?

I am not the one who doesn't understand what the terms mean.

But that's a huge difference. Why are you making so light of it?

Really now? So if I show you a picture of some myelinated axons, without telling you where in the body they came from, you could tell whether they constituted a "nerve" (were peripheral) or a "tract" (were central)?

Since the only difference between a "tract" and a "nerve" is where it is in the body, I'm calling bullshit.

But it's not part of the eye structure, as was explained in the definition. Is that definition inaccurate? If it is, why doesn't someone change it? They are giving out wrong information.

Since the optic nerve is simply the axons of the ganglionic cells in the retina of the eye, there's no way that it could possibly be more a "part of the eye structure." Your inability to understand anatomical terminology is not evidence that it's "wrong information." (That having been said, Wilipedia is hardly an authoritative or error-free source.)

Regardless, as has already been explained to you, we call them "nerves" when they extend beyond the CNS proper. Since the neurons in question do indeed extend beyond the CNS proper, that portion of the pathway is commonly referred to as the "optic nerve" and the portion which lies within the CNS is referred to as the "optic tract." Note, by the way, that these are the exact same neurons. We simply call the anterior portion the "optic nerve" and the posterior portion the "optic tract" in order to make it clear which portion we're talking about.

Bottom line, it still involves the CNS, which is different than the other afferent nerves that don't have any involvement with central nervous system. Doesn't this bother you at all?

No, you willful ignoramous, it doesn't bother me at all. That's because every single nerve in the body is "involved" in the Central Nervous System. And every single afferent nerve in the body (including the optic nerve) ends in the CNS -- that's the definition of an afferent nerve.

I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

No you aren't.

THIS IS WHAT I READ ON WIKI, SO I'M NOT PULLING THINGS OUT OF A HAT.

You most-definitely are pulling things out of a hat. You read something in Wikipedia (hardly an authoritative source to begin with), completely misunderstood it, and drew a completely false conclusion from your misunderstanding of what you had read.

Lessans said there are no afferent structures in the eye proper, not the brain proper.

The eye most-definitely does contain afferent neurons -- millions of them.

[davidm]

Love this part especially, when peacegirl "explains" the "bottom line" to TLR:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No, you willful ignoramous, it doesn't bother me at all. That's because every single nerve in the body is "involved" in the Central Nervous System. And every single afferent nerve in the body (including the optic nerve) ends in the CNS -- that's the definition of an afferent nerve.

I guess after a solid decade of making a complete ass of herself on the Internet, peacegirl actually must enjoy doing so.

[davidm]

Thanks so much for the anatomy lecture, peacegirl!

[davidm]

Lessans said there were no afferent structures in the eye proper.

Excpet that there are -- millions of them!

Now what, peacegirl?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
No, it just means that my red outfit will not stand out. It will blend in with the rest of the colors in the crowd (i.e., orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet).

Right. But, you are still traveling wearing your red shirt and are independently existing amongst the crowd while maintaining the individual properties of being you wearing a red shirt. You are simply less intense because of the presence of the other people (which is what optics is describing with dispersion). If 100 people walked out of the building with you, all wearing red shirts, and then joined the crowd and started dispersing, the red shirts would remain noticeable for a longer time due to there being more red shirts in a smaller area (more intense area of red), correct?

Now, does any of that imply that you are dependent on the building that you walked out of to remain traveling down the street in your red shirt until you stop traveling, (because you, for example, walk into another building and sit down)?

[LadyShea]

What substance does the word "cold" describe? How about hot? What substance is described by the words is, under, think, happy, large...etc. etc. etc.

There are millions of words that do not describe "substance".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You are a liar. Regardless, against my better judgement, I occasionally feel the need to point out the more spectacularly idiotic of your claims.

Here's a clue-by-four for you. Every single nerve in the body is "involved" in the the Central Nervous System. Every single nerve in the body either originates in or ends in the CNS. Just in case that isn't sufficiently clear for you, that includes every single sensory nerve.

But you seem absolutely positive that the eyes function as sense organs, and I don't. I also understand that everything has to relay to the central nervous system, but why do they say that the name "optic nerve" is a misnomer?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Second, you have no idea at all what the words "nerve" and "tract" mean.

If that's true, then how can you use the word "nerve" in this particular conversation?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I am not the one who doesn't understand what the terms mean.

I'm just wondering why this was brought out if it doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

We call myelinated axons that are bundled together by epineurium "nerves" in the peripheral nervous system and "tracts" in the central nervous system. This is merely a convention in order to indicate whether we're talking about PNS or CNS structures.

But it should have been called "optic tract"? I'm trying to understand. And please don't call me a liar.

But that's a huge difference. Why are you making so light of it?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Really now? So if I show you a picture of some myelinated axons, without telling you where in the body they came from, you could tell whether they constituted a "nerve" (were peripheral) or a "tract" (were central)?

I probably couldn't, which is why naming them "tract" or "nerve" would help me to understand what type of nerve it is.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Since the only difference between a "tract" and a "nerve" is where it is in the body, I'm calling bullshit.

Why the anger?

But it's not part of the eye structure, as was explained in the definition. Is that definition inaccurate? If it is, why doesn't someone change it? They are giving out wrong information.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Since the optic nerve is simply the axons of the ganglionic cells in the retina of the eye, there's no way that it could possibly be more a "part of the eye structure." Your inability to understand anatomical terminology is not evidence that it's "wrong information." (That having been said, Wilipedia is hardly an authoritative or error-free source.)

I didn't say it was wrong. I was just repeating what I read. Now I get it.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Regardless, as has already been explained to you, we call them "nerves" when they extend beyond the CNS proper. Since the neurons in question do indeed extend beyond the CNS proper, that portion of the pathway is commonly referred to as the "optic nerve" and the portion which lies within the CNS is referred to as the "optic tract." Note, by the way, that these are the exact same neurons. We simply call the anterior portion the "optic nerve" and the posterior portion the "optic tract" in order to make it clear which portion we're talking about.

Thank you!

Bottom line, it still involves the CNS, which is different than the other afferent nerves that don't have any involvement with central nervous system. Doesn't this bother you at all?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No, you willful ignoramous, it doesn't bother me at all. That's because every single nerve in the body is "involved" in the Central Nervous System. And every single afferent nerve in the body (including the optic nerve) ends in the CNS -- that's the definition of an afferent nerve.

Thanks for the detailed response. It makes sense now. But I am asking you again to please stop calling me names. It is immature and totally unproductive.

I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No you aren't.

Yes I am.

THIS IS WHAT I READ ON WIKI, SO I'M NOT PULLING THINGS OUT OF A HAT.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You most-definitely are pulling things out of a hat. You read something in Wikipedia (hardly an authoritative source to begin with), completely misunderstood it, and drew a completely false conclusion from your misunderstanding of what you had read.

I admit that. Sorry.

Lessans said there are no afferent structures in the eye proper, not the brain proper.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The eye most-definitely does contain afferent neurons -- millions of them.

What he meant is that the brain does not receive, decode, or interpret images from signals sent by the optic nerve. I guess he had no other way to express it. This was why he said the eyes don't have afferent nerve endings and why the eyes can't be defined as a sense organ.

[LadyShea]

The non-absorbed photons are dependent on the object in the sense that they do not travel independently of said object. If there's no object, then there's no absorbed light, and if there's no absorbed light, then there's no non-absorbed light.

I ask again, since you ignored it last time, where, on Earth can you find a place where these is no absorption of light going on to provide non-absorbed light in every direction?

[davidm]

LOL, what hilarity!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What he meant is that the brain does not receive, decode, or interpret images from signals sent by the optic nerve. I guess he had no other way to express it. This was why he said the eyes don't have afferent nerve endings and why the eyes can't be defined as a sense organ.

He did not say what he meant then, and what he did say was demonstrably wrong. Not unlike his molecules of light. Are you going to change his incorrect statement about no afferent structures like you changed molecules to photons?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What substance does the word "cold" describe? How about hot? What substance is described by the words is, under, think, happy, large...etc. etc. etc.

There are millions of words that do not describe "substance".

That's true, but the basis of language has to do with identifying and naming substance. Under is the opposite of over. To understand this, you need some sort of substance such as a table, to explain the concept. How can I explain happy if there's no substance to attach this adjective to? Also, most of us know the difference between words that represent fantasy (which are words that describe something unreal), and words that don't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He did not say what he meant then, and what he did say was demonstrably wrong. Not unlike his molecules of light. Are you going to change his incorrect statement about no afferent structures like you changed molecules to photons?

Just because he didn't use the scientific word does not discredit his claim LadyShea. Whether he was wrong in his word usage, I can admit that. He used the molecule which wasn't the right word. But this doesn't change the point he was making. He encouraged people to test his claim, and that is the only way this will ever be resolved. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[LadyShea]

Are you going to delete the statement about there being no afferent structures in the eyes, or are you going to leave it there in all of its wrongness?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because he didn't use the scientific word does not discredit his claim LadyShea. Whether he was wrong in his word usage, I can admit that. He used the molecule which wasn't the right word. But this doesn't change the point he was making. He encouraged people to test his claim, and that is the only way this will ever be resolved. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Look at her

He made a clear statement: there are no afferent structures in the eye.

The claim is demonstrably wrong.

Liar.