A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by koan

okay. sweet. let's turn this into a religion ourselves then. I suggest that the legally blind become the new leaders of the "free" world, having already shunned their eyes and realized the illusion that they are organs.

The time stamps on the forum should be good enough proof of authorship and the proceeds of the result can go to freethought-forum.com

A Koan is a specific tool to move a student toward enlightenment, and each is specific to a student. What is your's, I'm just curious. I don't think I've found mine yet, but I like this "Some things Daddy's can't fix, even with duct tape".

[koan]

Originally Posted by thedoc

A Koan is a specific tool to move a student toward enlightenment, and each is specific to a student. What is your's, I'm just curious. I don't think I've found mine yet, but I like this "Some things Daddy's can't fix, even with duct tape".

I am my own koan. When I figure out the question I will sell it to you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by koan

@peacegirl if you want to be the compiler/editor, you need to listen to where the helpful people of this thread are telling you there are problems. That you don't see the problem is entirely NOT the point. You are so obsessed with it you aren't seeing it clearly... that's where we come in. If we tell you it reads that way, it actually reads that way. You need to fix it.

Peacegirl could never bring herself to edit the holey text. Except for when she does. And then forgets about it. Then gets reminded. And then lies about it. But on the above note, here's a relevant comment from Popper - a lesson which neither Lessans nor his daughter appear to have learned:

"I also learned never to defend anything I had written against the accusation that it is not clear enough. If a conscientious reader finds a passage unclear, it has to be rewritten."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lying weasel, why are you avoiding acknowledging the fact that sometime between 2006 and 2010 you added the words "other than light" to the passage about eyes, changing the entire meaning of Lessans words? Are you going to pay the 100.00 you bet to No Kid Hungry? Why did you make the bet if you have no intention of paying?

Do you still maintain that you never evade or lie?

I was not lying LadyShea. What the hell are you talking about? I did not add those words. I already showed you where he wrote that passage.

I DO NOT LIE LADYSHEA. I WANT AN APOLOGY.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why weren't the words there in the first version?

Because I missed it when compiling the book, that's why.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How could you miss it? You had every other word in the passage but somehow missed a nonsensical insertion in the middle of a sentence? And you expect us to believe you "found it" only after people convinced you that light struck the optic nerve?

What nonsensical assertion? That light strikes the optic nerve? The truth is I missed it in his other book.

How many times do I have to say that I didn't add anything to the book other than some examples to help clarify the concepts. I feel like I'm on trial.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you add the fake dialog ("Oh look, here comes a Rabbi!*")?

No, that was the dialogue he wrote, and he did have an actual discussion with a rabbi. He also had a discussion with a pastor. He had discussions with professors also. He talked to Will Durant on the phone. He also talked to my friend Dave who went to an expo and saw a sign that read, "Come inside and see why the eyes are not a sense organ." He didn't make these things up. His earlier book was in prose but I liked the dialogue format because I thought it was much easier to grasp the principles, so that's what I used in the compilation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you add the line about homosexual relationships "naturally" declining in a no blame environment?

I did write that, but it was not not politically correct, so I took it out. I admit where I made additions but I did not change the basic concepts. I have been very forthcoming that I added examples, but that's all I did.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

[/I]Did you add the "Trillions upon trillions" of babies being born line?

He wrote that but it was just an advertisement. It wasn't in the book. And even if he was wrong about trillions, he may not have been as exact as he was about his basic and unnegotiable observations because they were spot on. You are trying to use these trivialities to have him discredited. But you can't do it LadyShea no matter hard you try. You bring extraneous things into the conversation as if this somehow invalidates his discovery. It does no such thing. Yes, he was human. Yes, he used molecules instead of photons. Yes, he said trillions instead of millions. But again this does not make his observations inaccurate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are those examples of?

What are you implying?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you add the plagiarized page of unverified quotes from doctors?

I did not plagiarize LadyShea. It was fair use, and I'm very comfortable with what I added as examples.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What was that an example of?

It was my way (which I have a right to as his daughter; and he wasn't worried in the least that I would screw his writing up) of clarifying certain concepts.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you change the word molecules to photons after you became convinced that it was the completely wrong word?

Yes, because he is being tarred and feathered for using that one word (he was not in that field), and because of it his observations are being ignored? Talk about narrow minded. You are, once again, finding trivialities because your goal is to discredit him. It's so obvious.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is that an example of?

*One of my favorite things I've ever read

This has to be a joke because you can't actually think that the things you're accusing me of changes the actual discovery. You're grasping at any straw you can get hold of because you want to be right in the worst way. You want to be the one that brings Lessans down. But you can't LadyShea because he's not wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I DO NOT LIE LADYSHEA. I WANT AN APOLOGY.

LadyShea does not owe you an apology. She was right. You owe her $100. The quote you gave showed Lessans using the phrase "other than light" in a different context and with a different meaning to the passage where you inserted those words yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Faith is enough for you, good luck getting the whole world to adhere to your unsupported beliefs.

I pray that people do not think like you LadyShea because in your effort to be a good scientist, you are missing the boat entirely. It such an unfortunate irony.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course you care. You get very upset every time I call you on one of your lies.

I don't like being called a liar. I really don't care what you think even though I don't like being labeled something I'm not. My conscience is clear. You need to apologize.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't like being called a liar.

Then stop telling porkies, little miss pants on fire.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then stop telling porkies, little miss pants on fire.

Now you're playing games with me, and I'm really not in the mood.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're playing games with me, and I'm really not in the mood.

No games. If you don't want to be called a liar, then you need to stop lying.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by koan

I am my own koan. When I figure out the question I will sell it to you.

The point of a koan is not to figure out the answer, there usually isn't one. The point is to so occupy your mind that it allows you to receive enlightenment.

Many years ago I read that we are all enlightened but most just don't know it. So I figured that if I'm already enlightened and just don't know it, I'll skip all the hard work and play with my grandchildren.

I think, in a way, I do have a Koan but it's a bit unusual. I have the puzzle 'Tower of Brahma', and working it has the same effect as a Koan. Mine has nine disks, and I made it myself out of oak. I could make another one and sell it to you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, because he is being tarred and feathered for using that one word (he was not in that field), and because of it his observations are being ignored?

Yes, 'he was not in that field', yet he made sweeping claims about it, out of ignorance, that were wrong, and you wonder why people would ignore what he writes.

[LadyShea]

Nothing, other than light, needs to make contact with the nerve endings in the eye in order for the eyes to be a sense organ. The standard model of sight states that light is the external stimuli that is received by specialized receptors, making it a sense according to the definition of sense. Lessans agreed with the standard definition of sense regarding the other senses. So Lessans ALSO agrees with the standard model of sight is what you are saying?

When he said "Nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve..." he was expressing a meaningful difference he thought existed between the eyes and the other sense organs, which is what he was trying to do in that passage. He was stating that external stimuli was received by receptors the other sense organs, but that no external stimuli was received by receptors in the eye. The sentence made sense in that context.

By adding "other than light", the sentence now reads that there is no difference between the eyes and other sense organs in this aspect, because something from the external world does strike nerve endings in all of them. So what would be the point of that entire passage if he knew that light impinges on the optic nerve?

Without the insertion of "other than light" Lessans explanation made sense with what he was expressing. With those words inserted, he negates his whole argument. You say he was very smart, if so, how would he have made such a stupid mistake?

The question is, did Lessns negate his own argument idiotically, did you add the words because you didn't understand how it changed his whole meaning, or did Lessans think light was not "something from the external world"?

Also see below a post you never responded to

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He said there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye. Photoreceptors are afferent neurons. He was wrong.

Not originally he didn't. You added that. Originally he said

because nothing from the external world strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

By adding "other than light" you negated the point he was making. He was clearly saying that the eyes didn't receive stimuli from the outside world, and that there were no sensory neurons in the eye. He stated it plainly! The one time he was clear as crystal, you start re-interpreting and adding words

This shit about traveling images/patterns is a strawman. It is stupid and incorrect. You've stated how many times that you understand that images don;t travel, so why do you revert to it every 5 seconds?

Sound doesn't travel, taste doesn't travel, odor doesn't travel. Light travels. Chemical compounds travel. Soundwaves (vibrations) travel. The external stimuli all travel.

Light is an external stimuli that is received by specialized afferent receptors in the eye. According to the definition Lessans accepted of a sense organ, the eyes are a sense organ.

Light is different than chemical compounds which are different than air vibrations. Each receptor is specialized to interact with a specific stimuli. So if the eyes aren't a sense organ, than neither are any of the other sense organs.

Where is this big difference in the eyes you seem to think exists?

This is gibberish...once again you are using the stupid strawman of traveling images, except you've changed it to patterns.

The light that is received by the photoreceptors is interpreted into an image. Just as the vibrations that are received by the mechanorecpetors in the ear are interpreted into sound, and the chemical compounds received by the chemoreceptors in the nose are interpreted into odors.

You added the words "Other than light" which changed the whole meaning of Lessans explanation.

Also, my conscience is clear too. I have no need to apologize.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LadyShea does not owe you an apology. She was right. You owe her $100. The quote you gave showed Lessans using the phrase "other than light" in a different context and with a different meaning to the passage where you inserted those words yourself.

What is the different meaning or context in these two sentences when they are almost identical and written in the same passage?

But this is a
wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

In fact,
it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that the eyes are not a
sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light, is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nothing, other than light, needs to make contact with the nerve endings in the eye in order for the eyes to be a sense organ. The standard model of sight states that light is the external stimuli that is received by specialized receptors, making it a sense according to the definition of sense. Lessans agreed with the standard definition of sense regarding the other senses. So Lessans ALSO agrees with the standard model of sight is what you are saying?

No, you missed the entire point he was making.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When he said "Nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve..." he was expressing a meaningful difference he thought existed between the eyes and the other sense organs, which is what he was trying to do in that passage. He was stating that external stimuli was received by receptors the other sense organs, but that no external stimuli was received by receptors in the eye. The sentence made sense in that context.

Light is something from the external world, so he had to qualify what he meant by saying "other than light." But the light does not carry information through space/time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By adding "other than light", the sentence now reads that there is no difference between the eyes and other sense organs in this aspect, because something from the external world does strike nerve endings in all of them. So what would be the point of that entire passage if he knew that light impinges on the optic nerve?

He qualified that for good reason. He said, other than light, nothing from the external world... Light is from the external world but it does not travel through space/time with any information from a previous event or object. He was totally correct in saying "other than light." This does not mean that it's like the other sense organs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Without the insertion of "other than light" Lessans explanation made sense with what he was expressing. With those words inserted, he negates his whole argument. You say he was very smart, if so, how would he have made such a stupid mistake?

You don't know what in the world you're talking about. LadyShea, you are putting your foot in your mouth. You think you caught him in a mistake, but you failed again!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The question is, did Lessns negate his own argument idiotically, did you add the words because you didn't understand how it changed his whole meaning, or did Lessans think light was not "something from the external world"?

That is why he inserted it LadyShea. But light traveling away from the object does not contain information (wavelengths and frequencies of a distant object).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also see below a post you never responded to

He said nothing about receptors. He was talking about the optic nerve. He was right when he said nothing, other than light, strikes the optic nerve. That means that light does not bounce off of objects and travel through space/time where it would be received and interpreted by the brain as an image.

I'm not going to argue with you because you think you caught him in a mistake. I think he's right and empirical evidence will bear this out one day.

His book says, other than light, so why are you accusing him of not putting this in his book? What is your problem LadyShea? You're no Sherlock Holmes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't get your last sentence at all. Where did I negate the only difference Lessans thought existed between the eyes and the other senses?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By adding "other than light" you negated the point he was making. He was clearly saying that the eyes didn't receive stimuli from the outside world, and that there were no sensory neurons in the eye. He stated it plainly! The one time he was clear as crystal, you start re-interpreting and adding words

I did not add words, dam it. Why do you keep accusing me of this?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Explain what Lessans thought was the difference between the sense and the eye, using ONLY LESSANS WORDS and not your additions

That was not my addition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is the senses are receiving and transmitting external stimuli to the brain. He did not believe that light has the same properties as other external stimuli because patterns don't travel through space and time, so how can light work like the other senses?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This shit about traveling images/patterns is a strawman. It is stupid and incorrect. You've stated how many times that you understand that images don;t travel, so why do you revert to it every 5 seconds?

Don't play these games with me. You know full well that scientists believe that if we were far enough away and in the right location, we would see a past event as far back as Columbus discovering America. This means light, according to their logic, is traveling with the frequency and wavelength that would turn up as a past image in the brain, a mirror, or on film. However you want to phrase it, that's what they believe. Use your own phrasing if you want, but don't tell me this is a strawman. It is not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sound doesn't travel, taste doesn't travel, odor doesn't travel. Light travels. Chemical compounds travel. Soundwaves (vibrations) travel. The external stimuli all travel.

Light is an external stimuli that is received by specialized afferent receptors in the eye. According to the definition Lessans accepted of a sense organ, the eyes are a sense organ.

Light is different than chemical compounds which are different than air vibrations. Each receptor is specialized to interact with a specific stimuli. So if the eyes aren't a sense organ, than neither are any of the other sense organs.

Where is this big difference in the eyes you seem to think exists?

This is gibberish...once again you are using the stupid strawman of traveling images, except you've changed it to patterns.

The light that is received by the photoreceptors is interpreted into an image. Just as the vibrations that are received by the mechanorecpetors in the ear are interpreted into sound, and the chemical compounds received by the chemoreceptors in the nose are interpreted into odors.

You added the words "Other than light" which changed the whole meaning of Lessans explanation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, my conscience is clear too. I have no need to apologize.

You're the liar LadyShea for accusing me of something I didn't do. You've crossed the line.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl could never bring herself to edit the holey text. Except for when she does. And then forgets about it. Then gets reminded. And then lies about it. But on the above note, here's a relevant comment from Popper - a lesson which neither Lessans nor his daughter appear to have learned:

"I also learned never to defend anything I had written against the accusation that it is not clear enough. If a conscientious reader finds a passage unclear, it has to be rewritten."

I very much doubt that she possess the sanity to tell the difference between what she has written and what Lessans originally wrote. Even if the original texts are available to her. As anyone can see on this very thread, anything she posted in the past no longer exists as far as she is concerned, even if it clearly shows that she has fabricated some of what she attributes to Lessans.

What I don't understand is how people continue to rehash her obvious mental problems when it is clear that it doesn't change her mind one little bit. Are they hoping for a miracle?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is the different meaning or context in these two sentences when they are almost identical and written in the same passage?

But this is a
wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

In fact,
it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that the eyes are not a
sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light, is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

Are you not even reading the thread? I already explained this in post #21242:

That provides a completely different meaning to where you have inserted this phrase. Here it means that light can get a reaction without impinging on the optic nerve, whereas in the context where you have inserted these words it says that light is the only thing which does impinge on the optic nerve. You owe LadyShea $100.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He qualified that for good reason. He said, other than light, nothing from the external world...

Why the ellipsis? What comes next? Lessans never said that light is something from the external world which strikes the optic nerve. That was your addition. Lessans was quite clear in claiming that nothing at all strikes any afferent receptors in the eye, and that only light can get a reaction from the eyes. That light is something from the external world which strikes receptors in the eyes is not something Lessans believed. It is something you added to the book yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why he inserted it LadyShea. But light traveling away from the object does not contain information (wavelengths and frequencies of a distant object).

Can you remember how many times you've been told not to speak of the wavelengths/frequencies of objects (because there is no such thing)? And traveling light does carry information. This is a simple fact of physics which has been explained to you repeatedly. Objects absorb light. Different objects absorb different parts of the spectrum but reflect the rest. Therefore the light traveling away from a red object will be different from the light traveling away from a blue object. The traveling light therefore contains information about where it has been. The light is the information, and as pinhole cameras show, this light alone is more than enough to create an image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl could never bring herself to edit the holey text. Except for when she does. And then forgets about it. Then gets reminded. And then lies about it. But on the above note, here's a relevant comment from Popper - a lesson which neither Lessans nor his daughter appear to have learned:

"I also learned never to defend anything I had written against the accusation that it is not clear enough. If a conscientious reader finds a passage unclear, it has to be rewritten."

And there should be an addendum. To accuse someone of not being clear enough before they have actually made the effort to understand what is being written, is foolhardy and unwarranted.

[peacegirl]

[quote=peacegirl;1093813]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LadyShea does not owe you an apology. She was right. You owe her $100. The quote you gave showed Lessans using the phrase "other than light" in a different context and with a different meaning to the passage where you inserted those words yourself.

What is the different meaning or context in these two sentences when they are almost identical and written in the same passage?

But this is a
wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

In fact,
it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that the eyes are not a
sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light, is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you not even reading the thread? I already explained this in post #21242:

That provides a completely different meaning to where you have inserted this phrase. Here it means that light can get a reaction without impinging on the optic nerve, whereas in the context where you have inserted these words it says that light is the only thing which does impinge on the optic nerve. You owe LadyShea $100.

I am not sure what you're talking about. I have to find post #21242.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He qualified that for good reason. He said, other than light, nothing from the external world...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why the ellipsis? What comes next? Lessans never said that light is something from the external world which strikes the optic nerve.

It was implied Spacemonkey. Nothing from the external world, OTHER THAN LIGHT...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That was your addition. Lessans was quite clear in claiming that nothing at all strikes any afferent receptors in the eye, and that only light can get a reaction from the eyes.

That is not what he said. He said light does strike the optic nerve. He did not say that only light can get a reaction from the eyes. He said the pupils contract and dilate depending on how much light enters.

[quote="Spacemonkey"]That light is something from the external world which strikes receptors in the eyes is not something Lessans believed. It is something you added to the book yourself.[/quote

He didn't use the words "receptors". He used "optic nerve". And he said that nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve. And I did not add this to the book. You can believe what you want, I don't care.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why he inserted it LadyShea. But light traveling away from the object does not contain information (wavelengths and frequencies of a distant object).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can you remember how many times you've been told not to speak of the wavelengths/frequencies of objects (because there is no such thing)?

Where did I say wavelenths/frequencies of objects? I said light traveling away or bouncing off of objects does not contain information and frequencies that travel through space/time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And traveling light does carry information. This is a simple fact of physics which has been explained to you repeatedly. Objects absorb light. Different objects absorb different parts of the spectrum but reflect the rest. Therefore the light traveling away from a red object will be different from the light traveling away from a blue object. The traveling light therefore contains information about where it has been. The light is the information, and as pinhole cameras show, this light alone is more than enough to create an image.

But a pinhole camera is within the field of view of the object. You still don't get it.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And there should be an addendum. To accuse someone of not being clear enough before they have actually made the effort to understand what is being written, is foolhardy and unwarranted.

The only time you'll think they made the effort to understand what was written is if they agree with it all.

Stretch your imagination and try to at least admit the possibility that someone might carefully read the whole book and yet still disagree with it!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And there should be an addendum. To accuse someone of not being clear enough before they have actually made the effort to understand what is being written, is foolhardy and unwarranted.

No, there should not be any addendum. His point is perfectly clear as it stands.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not sure what you're talking about. I have to find post #21242.

I just quoted it to you, Peacegirl.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was implied Spacemonkey. Nothing from the external world, OTHER THAN LIGHT...

Again, why the ellipsis? What comes next? Hint: It is something different in the passage where he used the words than where you inserted them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what he said. He said light does strike the optic nerve. He did not say that only light can get a reaction from the eyes.

Yes he did. That is exactly what he said: "...no object, other than light, is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes..."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And he said that nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve.

No, he didn't. He never said that. YOU are the only one who said that by adding words to the text.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did I say wavelenths/frequencies of objects? I said light traveling away or bouncing off of objects does not contain information and frequencies that travel through space/time.

Have you ever considered reading what you are replying to? Look at the bold parts above.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But a pinhole camera is within the field of view of the object...

...and can create an image purely from the information content of the light - information which you just claimed does not exist.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That provides a completely different meaning to where you have inserted this phrase. Here it means that light can get a reaction without impinging on the optic nerve, whereas in the context where you have inserted these words it says that light is the only thing which does impinge on the optic nerve. You owe LadyShea $100.

He wrote both of those phrases. What he meant was that nothing (other than light) can get a reaction. He did not mean that you can get a reaction without light impinging on the optic nerve. He said "no object" meaning the image, the frequency, the wavelength, etc.

...that no object, other than light (he was distinguishing between light that scientists believe contains information about an object, and light itself, which causes the pupils to dilate and contract.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not sure what you're talking about. I have to find post #21242.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I just quoted it to you, Peacegirl.

I read both quotes carefully and they express exactly what was intended, and they both mean the same thing. He did not say that no light impinges on the optic nerve. He said that when a baby is born there is no response to objects in the room even though light is causing the pupils to dilate and contract.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was implied Spacemonkey. Nothing from the external world, OTHER THAN LIGHT...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, why the ellipsis? What comes next? Hint: It is something different in the passage where he used the words than where you inserted them.

No, I just didn't feel like typing the whole sentence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what he said. He said light does strike the optic nerve. He did not say that only light can get a reaction from the eyes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes he did. That is exactly what he said: "...no object, other than light, is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes..."

Actually that's true. The eyes do react to light, but they don't react to the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And he said that nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve.

No, he didn't. He never said that. YOU are the only one who said that by adding words to the text.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did I say wavelenths/frequencies of objects? I said light traveling away or bouncing off of objects does not contain information and frequencies that travel through space/time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Have you ever considered reading what you are replying to? Look at the bold parts above.

Whatever. You know what I meant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But a pinhole camera is within the field of view of the object...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

...and can create an image purely from the information content of the light - information which you just claimed does not exist.

I've never denied that. It's the same image that forms on the retina. That's a fact.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He wrote both of those phrases.

Yes, we know that. But only one of them originally had the words "other than light". You added them to the other, but not in a way in which it would say the same thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What he meant was that nothing (other than light) can get a reaction.

Yes, that's what he said, and it is quite different from what you made him say by adding "other than light" to the second passage.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not mean that you can get a reaction without light impinging on the optic nerve. He said "no object" meaning the image, the frequency, the wavelength, etc.

You don't know what he meant. You are now trying to reinterpret him to justify your botched editing. Lessans never indicated that he believed light impinged on the receptors in the eye. In fact, he flat out denied that this was the case - until you edited his words to say otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...that no object, other than light (he was distinguishing between light that scientists believe has information about an object, and light itself, which does not have information about an object unless it's within your visual range.

There go those rocket-powered goal posts again. Learn some basic optics. And also some basic grammar while you're at it.