A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which celebs did you have in mind? It sounds like your plan is still very vague - I got the impression you were just wrapping up here, and were going to dive fully into promoting the hell out of this book?

It occured to me that Pee wee Herman might be a good choice. I think that Bill Nye has been discredited after having been Boo'd off the stage by a bunch on fundie literalists, for saying that the Moon shone by reflected light, but that can't be right because it would require that light travel.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It occured to me that Pee wee Herman might be a good choice. I think that Bill Nye has been discredited after having been Boo'd off the stage by a bunch on fundie literalists, for saying that the Moon shone by reflected light, but that can't be right because it would require that light travel.

Jeesh! Everyone knows we sent a man to the moon to change the light bulb.

[LadyShea]

He said numerous times that light does strike the optic nerve.

Numerous times? Prove that with page numbers

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Jeesh! Everyone knows we sent a man to the moon to change the light bulb.

Are you trying to say that 'light bulbs' travel, that would be in total contradiction to Lessans. If light doesn't travel then light bulbs can't travel either, that is an indisputable fact.

It is a little known fact that the mission had to be repeated several times, they kept missing the socket because the calculations were based on delayed time seeing. Luckily the light bulbs were already there, because they 'don't travel'.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Direct contact between what and what? For this to make any sense you need to say "There is no direct contact between X and Y and I stand by that"

Bump

[thedoc]

I would also be interested in what does not have direct contact with what? Lessans stated in the book that the Brain looking out through the eyes, sees the object directly, and peacegirl has stated that there is no distance between the eye and the object being seen. So 'no distance' would mean direct contact, or is this another idiocyncratic use of a term, or is Peacegirl changing it again to 'No direct contact' and no distance between them? Now that is an explination I would really like to see.

LadyShea, could you bump this for me, just in case the ignore is working.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Numerous times? Prove that with page numbers

I'm done defending this. He made a distinction between seeing objects at birth and the eyes reacting to light. I found where he left out "other than light" and where it was written. Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought p. 46 says: "and nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve to cause it."

I added "other than light" only because in his other book he used that exact phrase. View From the Mountain Top p. 41: "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."

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1094885]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Direct contact between what and what? For this to make any sense you need to say "There is no direct contact between X and Y and I stand by that"

X and Y do not have to have direct contact, but can still be side by side. This isn't how he came to his conclusions, and it won't be how he is proven right either so you're off on a wild goose chase again.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

X and Y do not have to have direct contact, but can still be side by side. This isn't how he came to his conclusions, and it won't be how he is proven right either so you're off on a wild goose chase again.

You were supposed to replace X and Y with whatever you were referring to when you said "there is no direct contact....."

Direct contact between what two things?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm done defending this. He made a distinction between seeing objects at birth and the eyes reacting to light. I found where he left out "other than light" and where it was written. Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought p. 46 says: "and nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve to cause it."

I added "other than light" only because in his other book he used that exact phrase. View From the Mountain Top p. 41: "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."

You're a liar. That's not the same sentence you said contained "other than light" in View from the Mountaintop before. You said the phrase appeared in the passage about what babies see, not in the passage regarding the definition of sense organ.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

X and Y do not have to have direct contact, but can still be side by side. This isn't how he came to his conclusions, and it won't be how he is proven right either so you're off on a wild goose chase again.

What are X and Y in the context where he was denying direct contact? This is what you were just asked.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm done defending this. He made a distinction between seeing objects at birth and the eyes reacting to light. I found where he left out "other than light" and where it was written. Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought p. 46 says: "and nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve to cause it."

I added "other than light" only because in his other book he used that exact phrase. View From the Mountain Top p. 41: "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."

Why is your story suddenly changing? You first said you added the words "other than light" after finding them in a different sentence from the same page (post #21239). You don't know what you did, do you? You don't remember.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, it's quite clear from reading the pages we've been discussing that Lessans thought the eyes could not be a sense organ primarily because he thought that this would require there to be images traveling through space to the eyes. This alone shows that he had no idea what he was supposed to be arguing against, as afferent vision does not require anything other than light to be striking the eyes. Lessans thought that for the eyes to be a sense organ, that 'images' in addition to light would have to be striking the optic nerve. He was wrong about that. He never understood the view he was rejecting.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't. His point was very clear and I've interpreted it correctly.

You are just trying to correct his misconception now, because it is so glaring.

So? His whole argument was that the eyes are not a sense organ because sense organs use specialized receptors to receive stimuli from the external world.

The eyes sense light using specialized receptors. That makes the eyes a sense organ by the very definition of sense organ Lessans used.

You are such a weasel, trying to twist what he said.

You are adding concepts he made no mention of at all. You are twisting what he said. If he meant all that convoluted crap you are reading into his plainly stated words, why didn't he say that?

The addition of "other than light" in that particular place, completely changed the meaning of the sentence and negated the point he was making.

I know exactly what I am talking about. You got caught trying to correct his misconception and you made it worse because now it looks internally contradictory.

He was wrong, but consistent before you added the words "other than light".

Why you bringing wavelengths into it? He said nothing about that.

And, you're wrong anyway, we have machines that can detect and measure the wavelengths of light as they are reflected or absorbed by objects.

You evaded it. You never answered it. Do you admit it was an incorrect statement...yes or no?

So you are convinced that there are no photoreceptors (which are afferent neurons) in the eyes?

Lessans said nothing (you added "other than light"), and he made no mention at all of reflection. What you are doing is reinterpreting what he said to make it fit the facts you have since become aware of.

You think it's okay to just make shit up that he didn't even say. Your explanation doesn't even make sense in the context of the passage being reviewed.

You are so dishonest....just like a fundie in every way.

You think there are no photoreceptors in the eyes? You think photoreceptors are not afferent? Exactly what part of that statement do you think is right and how is it right?

Because you did it.

Which has nothing to do with images traveling.

Light travels. Light detectors form images from light.

Light is traveling with a wavelength because traveling and wavelength are both immutable properties of light. If it wasn't traveling, or didn't have a wavelength, it wouldn't be light.

Light detectors, like cameras and eyes, can detect light. And yes, images can be created from light as can be demonstrated with a photograph, perhaps you've seen one?

Still nothing about traveling images.

No response to this, huh? You never evade though.

Your only response has been a whining weasel. I want a real response, please

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as that other post, I maintain that sex and procreation are the underlying motivations for marriage. Ask any "normal" person who is looking for a mate whether they would be satisfied choosing a partner whom they knew beforehand would never be able to provide them with a sexual experience or the possibility of having children, and see what they say. It turns out that the happier a person is sexually, the more in love they feel. Ask anyone. This is no surprise.

I gather that when you refer to someone "choosing a partner whom they knew beforehand would never be able to provide them with a sexual experience" you are referencing people who lack the use of their hands, feet and mouths (and possibly some other body parts) in addition to lacking the use of their genitalia. If that is not what you meant, then it must be the case that there will be no foreplay in the New Environment. That would be just too sad!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my goodness, you will get a repeat of Davidm. He was so offended by the claim that Jupiter was not seen in delayed time that he snuck behind my back to give this review. David didn't have the desire to do this, and should people believe a completely biased review and not want to understand the person who originated it? And you call this good science?

No, it is called literary criticism. Are you confused about the differences between the two things?

You have mentioned before how this fellow snuck behind your back to do that critique. What exactly do you mean by that and under what circumstances would writing a critique involve sneaking behind the author's back?

[LadyShea]

Yeah, how sneaky and behind your back can a review on Amazon be? Amazon is made to have books reviewed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You were supposed to replace X and Y with whatever you were referring to when you said "there is no direct contact....."

Direct contact between what two things?

No direct contact between the reflected light and the optic nerve. I don't want to get into transduction again. I will say, for the last time, that empirical proof is not yet established even if you think it is. Only time will tell whether he was right or wrong on this issue.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, it is called literary criticism. Are you confused about the differences between the two things?

You have mentioned before how this fellow snuck behind your back to do that critique. What exactly do you mean by that and under what circumstances would writing a critique involve sneaking behind the author's back?

Actually 'Good Science' would be if Kevin Greene had taken the claims and tested them emperically, and reported back, either in total or individually. However his critique was of the book as a work of literature, and I can see how he may have been confused whether is was 'fiction' or 'religious-fiction'. As it is, the critique was a series of 'astute observations' that were 'spot on'.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No direct contact between the reflected light and the optic nerve. I don't want to get into transduction again. I will say, for the last time, that empirical proof is not yet established even if you think it is. Only time will tell whether he was right or wrong on this issue.

Okay.

So you stand by his claim that there is no direct contact between reflected light and the optic nerve.

And you also insist that Lessans said numerous times that light does strike the optic nerve.

Do we have this right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, it's quite clear from reading the pages we've been discussing that Lessans thought the eyes could not be a sense organ primarily because he thought that this would require there to be images traveling through space to the eyes. This alone shows that he had no idea what he was supposed to be arguing against, as afferent vision does not require anything other than light to be striking the eyes. Lessans thought that for the eyes to be a sense organ, that 'images' in addition to light would have to be striking the optic nerve. He was wrong about that. He never understood the view he was rejecting.

That is not true at all Spacemonkey. He said the image was not being reflected in the light (meaning the image is not traveling through space/time when the object is no longer present), not that images were separate from light. He knew that light striked the eyes, which is why he said nothing from the external world, other than light... You're completely wrong in your assumption that he believed images, in addition to light, would have to be striking the optic nerve. He was only trying to show that the brain does not decode those impulses into an image which can be seen as normal vision, not that the light doesn't strike the optic nerve.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No direct contact between the reflected light and the optic nerve. I don't want to get into transduction again. I will say, for the last time, that empirical proof is not yet established even if you think it is. Only time will tell whether he was right or wrong on this issue.

It is known that reflected light does strike the retina, which is the end of the afferant optic nerve, by passing through the lens and the eye. This has been established by an irrifutable mountain of evidence, from tests and little or no evidence to the contrary, except for Lessans unsupported claims. Time will only add to the evidence that Lessans was wrong, and I look forward to additional testing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true at all Spacemonkey. He said the image was not being reflected in the light (meaning the image is not traveling through space/time when the object is no longer present), not that images were separate from light. He wasn't wrong about that because that's not what he believed. You're completely wrong in your assumption. He understood very well the view that he was rejecting.

Bullshit. He thought that the account he was rejecting had images traveling that were distinct from the light. Otherwise he wouldn't have agreed that light travels and strikes the eye while denying that images do. He didn't understand that the eyes being a sense organ doesn't require anything other than light to strike the eyes. He repeatedly states that the eyes are not a sense organ because there is nothing other than light striking the eyes.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true at all Spacemonkey. He said the image was not being reflected in the light (meaning the image is not traveling through space/time when the object is no longer present), not that images were separate from light. He knew that light striked the eyes, which is why he said nothing from the external world, other than light... You're completely wrong in your assumption that he believed images, in addition to light, would have to be striking the optic nerve. He was only trying to show that the brain does not decode those impulses into an image which can be seen as normal vision, not that the light doesn't strike the optic nerve.

Then what if the object is still present, does he claim that the image travels with the light to the eye?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Okay.

So you stand by his claim that there is no direct contact between reflected light and the optic nerve.

There is an obvious connection between light and the optic nerve. What those impulses transmit to the brain and what the brain does with those impulses is what is being debated. He did not believe that where the eyes are concerned, the brain functions in the same way as the other senses, due to the fact that there is nothing in the impulses that could be interpreted as normal vision. Rather, those impulses allow the brain to see through the eyes at the external world in real time (as you well know by now). All of your questioning is not going to negate this claim. This will have to be decided through more detailed empirical testing with this claim in mind. If the results contravene this long held belief, then scientists will need to take a second look at what they took for granted was absolute fact.