A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The light is being emitted by the Sun, so is at the Sun at noon when the Sun is turned on. It is somewhere between the Sun and Earth for 8 minutes as it travels. Light travels, it is an immutable property of light. Things that are traveling are physically moving through physical locations as they travel, this is a law of physics.

How does it get to the eye on Earth at noon if not by traveling? It's not possible without a physical mechanism, no matter how you work it.

How does your butt get to the chair to sit on it? Work backwards from your ass. And yes, it is identical. Light has physical properties just like your body. It has to get to places to be at places.

You don't just say your butt has to be in the chair by virtue of you sitting in the chair and leave it at that. That's a necessary condition of you sitting on a chair, but it doesn't explain how you got to the chair from someplace else.

"Puts" is a verb. It means something is physically placed in a specific location by some outside force. It is a mechanism by which something comes to be located somewhere.

How does that mechanism work in this scenario? What outside force is doing this placement of light at the eye instantaneously and most importantly how?

So you are asserting that they eyes change the physical properties of light allowing light to violate the laws of physics by teleporting millions of miles to impinge on retinas.

Yes, it really is. That is the definition of teleportation.

What causes the solar mass to be bright? The light it is emitting. Without photons being emitted, we would see nothing.

Why can't we see black holes that have much more mass than our Sun, and are literally surrounded by very large stars emitting tremendous amounts of light?


In order for Lessans idea to be plausible, you must explain how the conditions necessary for efferent vision can plausibly be met within the framework of the laws of physics. Just stating the conditions over and over explains nothing.

All you're doing Ladyshea is comparing physics with efferent vision. It can't be done because of how the eyes work. You will never get it, and you will continue to think that this is impossible, for this very reason. I cannot make you understand this knowledge, but the fact that you don't does not make it inaccurate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what did he say? What mechanism did he offer other than we can see stuff that can be seen in real time?

EFFERENT VISION, DAMN IT. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE CLAIM, BUT YOU DON'T SEE IT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY PHOTONS DO NOT HAVE TO BE ON EARTH TO SEE MATERIAL OBJECTS IN REAL TIME. UNTIL YOU DO, FORGET IT. I CANNOT KEEP DEFENDING THIS VERY LEGITIMATE CLAIM JUST SO LADYSHEA GETS IT. IT'S TOO HARD.

[LadyShea]

Efferent vision is the claim you are being asked to support and explain. And you cannot.

You just keep making more claims and stating necessary conditions, but are not offering any explanations of mechanisms which are plausible or legitimate or even possible.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you're doing Ladyshea is comparing physics with efferent vision. It can't be done because of how the eyes work. You will never get it, and you will continue to think that this is impossible, for this very reason. I cannot make you understand this knowledge, but the fact that you don't does not make it inaccurate.

All you are doing is weaseling

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just not getting that sight is in a completely different category than how we measure and use light for various things. Until you see that there is no conflict, and that he is not trying to negate light physics, you will continue to mix these two phenomenons mixed up.

I went out into my garden last night and looked at Jupiter and its moons through a pair of good binoculars on a tripod. Jupiter is high in the southern sky at about 8 pm UK time right now. I checked with this website before I went out to see, and the moons were in the exact predicted positions!

Here are today's Jupiter moon events with the times (UT, or Greenwich mean time) they will be seen from Earth:

00:54 UT, Ganymede's shadow leaves Jupiter's disk.
09:36 UT, Europa begins transit of Jupiter.
11:24 UT, Europa's shadow begins to cross Jupiter.
12:04 UT, Europa ends transit of Jupiter.
13:58 UT, Europa's shadow leaves Jupiter's disk.
16:48 UT, Io enters occultation behind Jupiter.
19:56 UT, Io exits eclipse by Jupiter's shadow.

Those times allow for the fact that Jupiter is currently at a distance of 4.32 a.u. from Earth (36 light minutes) so if we were to see Jupiter as it is, without any delay, we'd see all those events occur 36 minutes earlier.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Efferent vision is the claim you are being asked to support and explain. And you cannot.

You just keep making more claims and stating necessary conditions, but are not offering any explanations of mechanisms which are plausible or legitimate or even possible.

I know that's what you believe, just as you believe his observations about greater satisfaction are assertions. I am giving you his observations, which you consistently throw out premturely. The mechanism as to how the brain and eyes are able to do this will eventually be determined once his claim is taken seriously. Even if you're not convinced that our eyes work this way, the difference between the efferent and afferent accounts are diametrically opposed, which should give you pause before yelling "Assertion" or jumping to the conclusion that it's impossible.

[thedoc]

In efferent vision how does the eye/brain acquire the image of the object? We know that you say it happens, but how does it happen? Just saying that the conditions are met does, not tell us how it happens. How does the image of the object get to the eye/brain?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if you're not convinced that our eyes work this way, the difference between the efferent and afferent accounts are diametrically opposed, which should give you pause before yelling "Assertion" or jumping to the conclusion that it's impossible.

The fact that all data, and every experiment, and every test, done so far, supports afferent vision, and efferent vision is diametrically opposed to, not just afferent vision, but all data, experemental results, and tests, is the reason that most will reject efferent vision, even after carefully considering it as a possibility.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

EFFERENT VISION, DAMN IT. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE CLAIM, BUT YOU DON'T SEE IT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY PHOTONS DO NOT HAVE TO BE ON EARTH TO SEE MATERIAL OBJECTS IN REAL TIME. UNTIL YOU DO, FORGET IT. I CANNOT KEEP DEFENDING THIS VERY LEGITIMATE CLAIM JUST SO LADYSHEA GETS IT. IT'S TOO HARD.

Efferent vision is not a mechanism. It does not have a mechanism. And yes, photons have to be on Earth because that is where the retina is, and they must be in contact with the retina for us to see. Resorting to CAPSLOCK does nothing to change this obvious fact. Why don't you stop trying to defend the impossible, and start being reasonable?

[koan]

There is a type of efferent vision that is instantaneous. It's called mental imagery. If you are sat in your car, ready to leave for work and suddenly think "crap. did I turn off the coffee pot?" you will find that a picture of your kitchen counter appears in your mind and you make a decision if the light was on or off. If you find yourself thinking of a friend you haven't seen in a long time you will suddenly see their face in front of you. Those are images created by efferent vision. Here's the glitch: Those pictures are in your mind and aren't actually in front of you. They are not useful when considering reality.

If Lessans was right, then our mental projections of what is there to be seen would actually create reality. I've often wondered at how schizophrenics have conversations with people who don't exist. I watched guy in The Pickle Barrel restaurant in Toronto playing cards with an empty chair. He got into an argument with his imaginary friend and it seemed the invisible person had cheated at the card game. The cards on the table hadn't moved but this man must have seen them moving in order to believe the game was being played. That is what would happen if we all had efferent vision. We'd all be walking around interacting with objects and people who may or may not be actually there. Most certainly some people do.

If we assume Lessans to be correct, we would not be able to agree on what is real and what isn't because our brains would all be giving us different visions of what animal is in the room; a jackass or an elephant?

Efferent vision exists, but only in the world of a schizophrenic.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you're doing Ladyshea is comparing physics with efferent vision. It can't be done because of how the eyes work.

Regardless of whether they're efferent or afferent in function, the eyes must obey the laws of physics.

Do you disagree?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All you are doing is weaseling

But since Peacegirl doesn't have any real answers, that's all she can do.

[But]

Originally Posted by koan

There is a type of efferent vision that is instantaneous. It's called mental imagery. If you are sat in your car, ready to leave for work and suddenly think "crap. did I turn off the coffee pot?" you will find that a picture of your kitchen counter appears in your mind and you make a decision if the light was on or off. If you find yourself thinking of a friend you haven't seen in a long time you will suddenly see their face in front of you. Those are images created by efferent vision. Here's the glitch: Those pictures are in your mind and aren't actually in front of you. They are not useful when considering reality.

Reality gets fuzzy, much more so than for non-schizophrenics. That can cause a lot of problems in their lives. But some of them become great artists, scientists, philosophers, among other things.

If Lessans was right, then our mental projections of what is there to be seen would actually create reality. I've often wondered at how schizophrenics have conversations with people who don't exist. I watched guy in The Pickle Barrel restaurant in Toronto playing cards with an empty chair. He got into an argument with his imaginary friend and it seemed the invisible person had cheated at the card game. The cards on the table hadn't moved but this man must have seen them moving in order to believe the game was being played.

What did he see? You didn't see the cards move, but he seemed to. How is that possible? The answer is efferent vision. Others may call something like that clairvoyance.

That is what would happen if we all had efferent vision. We'd all be walking around interacting with objects and people who may or may not be actually there. Most certainly some people do.

And the cards never move, right? Of course, there are lots of people claiming that cards or other things sometimes move, seemingly by themselves, or influenced by people who are only half there, but if Lessans is right (first laugh), the first people to say that will be the most extreme schizophrenics, whose observations can't be trusted, because they see things that aren't there. Wait, that's circular.

But other people, whose observations are trusted by many more people, have observed those things. It started with simple experiments involving light and narrow slits and particles of light seemingly being pushed around by particles of light that clearly weren't there, they didn't leave marks on a screen for example. Most of the time.

It went so far that one of the greatest physicists and without a doubt one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, didn't believe that what other physicists said happens, really happens. Did he mistrust their observations? He didn't think they observed what they thought they observed. He didn't mistrust their eyes, he mistrusted their judgement. He made a very elaborate argument to show that, whatever really happens, their interpretation must be wrong. They didn't even understand the basic structure of his argument. That's how much of a genius he was. Instead, they focused on side issues, for example what the experimentalists saw with their eyes.

Let's return to the table with the cards. Can you describe in some detail how the game was played?

[koan]

Originally Posted by But

Reality gets fuzzy, much more so than for non-schizophrenics. That can cause a lot of problems in their lives. But some of them become great artists, scientists, philosophers, among other things.

What did he see? You didn't see the cards move, but he seemed to. How is that possible? The answer is efferent vision. Others may call something like that clairvoyance.

And the cards never move, right? Of course, there are lots of people claiming that cards or other things sometimes move, seemingly by themselves, or influenced by people who are only half there, but if Lessans is right (first laugh), the first people to say that will be the most extreme schizophrenics, whose observations can't be trusted, because they see things that aren't there. Wait, that's circular.

But other people, whose observations are trusted by many more people, have observed those things. It started with simple experiments involving light and narrow slits and particles of light seemingly being pushed around by particles of light that clearly weren't there, they didn't leave marks on a screen for example. Most of the time.

It went so far that one of the greatest physicists and without a doubt one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, didn't believe that what other physicists said happens, really happens. Did he mistrust their observations? He didn't think they observed what they thought they observed. He didn't mistrust their eyes, he mistrusted their judgement. He made a very elaborate argument to show that, whatever really happens, their interpretation must be wrong. They didn't even understand the basic structure of his argument. That's how much of a genius he was. Instead, they focused on side issues, for example what the experimentalists saw with their eyes.

Let's return to the table with the cards. Can you describe in some detail how the game was played?

That incident was a long time ago and I was chatting with people at my table between watching him so I can't be sure exactly what he did. We all stopped and watched when he got into the argument. He was pointing at the seat and then at the cards while he yelled. But he was yelling in hushed tones as if intentionally trying to avoid a public scene. I don't remember if some of the cards were face up or the hand of cards on the invisible person's side of the table were untouched.

I have had vivid hallucinations myself when I was a child. Some of them interacted with the environment quite convincingly. I saw neon worms all over the floor in a room and when someone walked across the floor I'd see the worms squish under their feet. A duffel bag next to a rolltop desk turned into an alligator that started chewing on the leg of the desk. The desk responded by starting to fall over. All the hallucinations took place when the lights were turned out (the moment the lights went out not after I was falling asleep) and would stop as soon as the light was turned on again. It went on for a long time and stopped just before my mother was ready to take me to a psychiatrist. I have no idea why she didn't let me sleep with the light on.

One time when I was exhausted from a double shift and getting a ride home from work the driver made a stop on the way home and parked his truck on a steep slope. I didn't know how to drive so I briefly worried that the truck would start rolling backwards down the hill. The moment I had that thought the truck started to roll. The house in front of me got visually further away, I felt myself moving backwards, all my senses verified it. I dove to the floor, considered the two pedals, made a choice which to hit with my fist, and the feeling of rolling suddenly stopped before I pounded my hand down. I sat up and was sitting exactly where the driver had parked.

There is a lecture that discusses hallucination and their origins in the brain. The value to this thread is that he discusses how they are able to study which parts of the brain are active in precise types of brain originated visions (efferent vision) and how they compare it to afferent vision brain activity. They are able to do both. If the brain were the source of normal vision, they would see the activity just like they can see which part of the brain creates false visual data.

Oliver Sacks: What hallucination reveals about...

[Vivisectus]

If you want anyone to accept Efferent vision, there is a long list of problems you need to deal with.

First we need to be clear on what we are talking about: "sight" is information about the outside world that ends up in the brain in a process that involves the eyes and the optic nerve, and "looking" is the action of the eyes that causes sight.

The accepted theory explains how the information ends up in the brain. Efferent sight has no such explanation. In fact it is very difficult to imagine any way in which it would even be possible for it to happen, as it is not compatible with what we understand of physics.

How can an object 1 light minute away cause an instant reaction in the brain without anything crossing the intervening space and interacting with either the eye, the optic nerve, or the brain itself?

There is another problem with it: what reason do we have to even consider it?

Can we observe anything that is not compatible with the accepted theory, but that IS compatible with efferent sight?

All I have found that even approaches such a thing is his statements about infant sight and dog sight. Not only is there experimental evidence that suggests these are incorrect, but even if you refuse to accept that evidence, neither of the two statements by the book are incompatible with the accepted version of sight either. There are simple explanations using the accepted theory for both phenomena.

On the other hand, we have several observations that are incompatible with efferent sight if we consider efferent sight to be instant. Observations of the moons of Jupiter and the fact that we can fire probes at places where we do not see the planet, but expect the planet to be if there is a delay in sight that corresponds to the speed of light, are both examples of things that cannot be true if efferent sight is true.

Your response to this has often been, "something else must be going on". Fair enough: let us consider what this something else would have to entail.

In the case of our observations of the moon Io that orbits Jupiter, some unknown force of incredible magnitude must be speeding Io up, and slow it down again, exactly as much as would be required to make us, and only us here on earth, observe a delay that corresponds with the speed of light!

Not only that, but it does the same thing for other bodies in space, even though the forces required are completely different for those, as the result here on earth always corresponds to the number of light minutes between us and the object we observe. Something, somehow, is making all these planets move quicker or slower, depending on how far away from us they are.

At the same time a completely different force is pushing our probes off course exactly enough and in the right direction to correspond with the position of the earth at the time of firing relative to the planet we are aiming at to match the difference we would expect if sight was not instant! Again, this force seems to somehow focus on earth and earth alone: the results would be wildly different when attempted from any other part of the galaxy.

On top of that, all the observations that confirm the accepted theory are consistent: there is not one kind of delay with the moons of Jupiter, and a different one where the probes are concerned. We do not see a supernova one moment, but detect non-visible light from it at a different point in time. Every observation points to a single factor: light, and it's limited speed.

Efferent sight does not have a set of observations that all tie in together. In fact it has none at all.

In order to make efferent sight coherent, we need to find out the following:

1: What can we observe that is explained by efferent sight, but cannot be explained by afferent sight?

2: By what method does the information we call sight appear in the brain?

3: How do we explain the observations that are incompatible with efferent sight that were pointed out above? What mysterious forces produce these consistent observations from all different kinds of methods that all point to a single factor, namely a delay in sight caused by the speed of light?

Unless answers can be found to these 3 questions, we must discard the idea. Not to do so is unscientific and irrational.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am giving you his observations, which you consistently throw out premturely.

It is not prematurely. His ideas have been scrutinized and do not stand up to that scrutiny at all. You are unable to make them compatible with known facts and reality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The mechanism as to how the brain and eyes are able to do this will eventually be determined once his claim is taken seriously.

The claim cannot and will not be taken seriously if you cannot come up with a plausible, let alone possible, mechanism. Think about all the millions of claims people make...why would the ones, like efferent vision, that can't be explained without invoking magical impossibilities be taken seriously by anyone?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if you're not convinced that our eyes work this way, the difference between the efferent and afferent accounts are diametrically opposed, which should give you pause before yelling "Assertion" or jumping to the conclusion that it's impossible.

Does efferent vision require that light have different properties then it has been empirically observed to have? Everything you've said thus far indicates that it does.

Since light does not have the properties that efferent vision seems to require it to have (such as the property of non-reflection), it is therefore impossible. You will need to observe and measure light not reflecting. You will need to prove that light is duplicated on retinas without traveling or teleporting there, for your idea to be not impossible.

[thedoc]

thedoc
B.O.F. Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: VDCCXLIV

Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's true that anything we choose will be in the direction of greater satisfaction, but this is not how he came to his first premise, which is what you're assuming. It is much more than we choose what we choose. I also said that you cannot observe "greater satisfaction" directly but this does not make his observation any less astute or accurate. Lastly, he did not say that we can predict behavior through this observation. It is the gateway that leads to his discovery which indirectly proves that man's will is not free because we can only move in one direction which is not to hurt others with a first blow. If will was free we could hurt others under any condition, which is impossible when every bit of justification is removed.


Peacegirl, if you had made this statment when you first started on this forum, people could have gotten into a discussion of the real points of Lessans theories instead of wandering around on topics that were peripheral to the main subject. Refusing to give a synopsis, and insisting that people read the whole book just opened the discussion to whatever people found in the book that struck their fancy. You could have directed and lead the discussion in the direction that you felt was important, but instead you allowed others to direct the dialogue into areas that had little bearing on the main points. By pointing out the salient ideas people could have read with a purpose of finding the explinations of those ideas and you could have pointed the way, rather than allowing others to lead the discussion. Several times on this thread you have asked others to do it your way, but you have never given clear direction how to procede, in fact many times you have refused to procede just because people would not accept your claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All you are doing is weaseling

I am not going to continue the conversation because you are lost, and your lostness is now your defense. Talk about wasted time, that is why I am not answering you anymore. You don't get it and you are putting yourself on a pedestal of someone who can determine the truth. This is a travesty of the worst kind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is not prematurely. His ideas have been scrutinized and do not stand up to that scrutiny at all. You are unable to make them compatible with known facts and reality.

The claim cannot and will not be taken seriously if you cannot come up with a plausible, let alone possible, mechanism. Think about all the millions of claims people make...why would the ones, like efferent vision, that can't be explained without invoking magical impossibilities be taken seriously by anyone?

Does efferent vision require that light have different properties then it has been empirically observed to have? Everything you've said thus far indicates that it does.

Since light does not have the properties that efferent vision seems to require it to have (such as the property of non-reflection), it is therefore impossible. You will need to observe and measure light not reflecting. You will need to prove that light is duplicated on retinas without traveling or teleporting there, for your idea to be not impossible.

Everything you say is bullshit because you are basing your analysis on a flaw. How can the truth be known when the flaw is embedded in the very logic you are using to discredit him? It's so sad to me, but I will not put myself in the line of attack. It is suicidal and I realize this.

[Spacemonkey]

Why have you come back again?

[LadyShea]

Where is my flaw in how light works?

You've said reflected light doesn't travel
You've said light appears instantly on retinas, in a scenario where there is no light in physical proximity to Earth, let alone physically located in billions of human eyes
Your statements are demonstrably impossible, unless light has unknown properties or follows unknown physical laws. Is that your claim?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is not prematurely. His ideas have been scrutinized and do not stand up to that scrutiny at all. You are unable to make them compatible with known facts and reality.

The claim cannot and will not be taken seriously if you cannot come up with a plausible, let alone possible, mechanism. Think about all the millions of claims people make...why would the ones, like efferent vision, that can't be explained without invoking magical impossibilities be taken seriously by anyone?

Does efferent vision require that light have different properties then it has been empirically observed to have? Everything you've said thus far indicates that it does.

Since light does not have the properties that efferent vision seems to require it to have (such as the property of non-reflection), it is therefore impossible. You will need to observe and measure light not reflecting. You will need to prove that light is duplicated on retinas without traveling or teleporting there, for your idea to be not impossible.

No, it is not impossible that objects do not reflect light (or patterns beyond the optical range), but rather light reflects objects when they are in the field of view. You are just mimicking what you have been taught. This model is actually very plausible when understood. I can't even begin to break through the sound barrier of learned ignorance that you all hold. It makes it extremely difficult for a genuine discovery to be authenticated. That is why these forums are a waste of time, but I will not be railroaded out of here by Spacemonkey so that he can gloat over his fake triumph.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

it is not impossible that objects do not reflect light

Of course it is not impossible, weasel. Some light is absorbed by some objects. Some light is transmitted through some objects. Some light is reflected off some objects and that is the light I was referring to.

Does reflected light travel in efferent vision? You've stated it does not many, many times. Shall I dig up the quotes?

Non-traveling light is impossible.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This model is actually very plausible when understood. I can't even begin to break through the sound barrier of learned ignorance that you all hold. It makes it extremely difficult for a genuine discovery to be authenticated.

It's extremely difficult to authenticate a false discovery. If you can even call "efferent vision" a model, it's not very plausible, which is exactly what we've been telling you all this time.

[Vivisectus]

If efferent vision is correct, then there must be a reason why all our observations lead to tjha same conclusiom: delay in sight. This reason must explain why the factor involved in this delay is always the speed of light and the distance said object is away from us.. and that this mysterious force seems to be there to make all observantions on earth, and only earth, skewed in a highly specific way!

If efferent vision were true and there is some force moving all these objects to make it look from an observation point on earth like there is a delay determined by lightspeed, then the results of the same observations from a different star would be wildly different, and would seem to be completely random! It is alsmost like there is a galactic conspiracy with near-infinite power, just to make it seem like there is a delay in sight.

Against such overwhelming evidence, how could anyone rational call efferent sight rational or plausible? It makes Russells Teapot seem quite likely by comparison. Again - ten minutes with a physics 101 course, and all this embarrassment would have been avoided. How did our erudite reader of important tomes manage to miss such common knowledge? How come he felt competent to supply examples from physics ( the sun turning on, the observer on Alpha Cetauri, the hillarious "molecules of light") when he clearly did not even understand highschool-level basics about the subject?

The only reason he never spotted how foolish he was being was because he was too ingorant to be able to notice. He simply did not know what he was talking about.