A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, to boil it down, our choices are twofold:

1. Virtually everything we know about physics, astronomy, visual anatomy, and neural physiology is wrong. Furthermore, the entire Universe is somehow conspiring to create the illusion that we here on Earth -- and only we here on Earth -- see in delayed time.
   
   
2. Lessans' wholly unsupported claims are correct.

I sure know which choice I think is more likely to be the correct one.

Do I detect a note of incredulous doubt in your Post? I am appalled!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing the entire concept again. You are not thinking in terms of efferent vision at all. If we are able to see an object (in this case the Sun; we're working this backwards), the light is already at the eye or we could not see said object. Our gaze is already in the optical range which allows a mirror image of exactly what we are seeing to show up on the retina instantly.

You're a weaseling idiot. YOU are postulating light at the retina on Earth in YOUR model. Either it is newly existing light or it previously existed and had a location. Where was this light a moment beforehand? It had to be somewhere. All you are doing is ignoring the gaping holes and contradictions in your own account of efferent vision.

[koan]

If words don't work, maybe pictures will.

Here is efferent vision cutting the travel time in half and the second is the brain efferently helping the body cut vision travel time to nil. Tell me which you believe in, peacegirl.

[But]

Originally Posted by koan

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.

Okay, let's enlarge the context a bit. I assume he used to play cards quite often; did he always sit at the same table? Did he also sit on the other chair some of the time?

I don't think schizophrenics see things that aren't there, we just have to figure out where there is. Don't fixate on three dimensions and a narrow concept of space or time.

[But]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, to boil it down, our choices are twofold:

1. Virtually everything we know about physics, astronomy, visual anatomy, and neural physiology is wrong. Furthermore, the entire Universe is somehow conspiring to create the illusion that we here on Earth -- and only we here on Earth -- see in delayed time.
2. Lessans' wholly unsupported claims are correct.

I sure know which choice I think is more likely to be the correct one.

It's 1, 2, or 3. False dichotomy.

[koan]

Originally Posted by But

Okay, let's enlarge the context a bit. I assume he used to play cards quite often; did he always sit at the same table? Did he also sit on the other chair some of the time?

I don't think schizophrenics see things that aren't there, we just have to figure out where there is. Don't fixate on three dimensions and a narrow concept of space or time.

You can reasonably assume that a person will do things they are accustomed to. I am resistant to habit but I'm not like many others. Mostly, other people like to develop habits or "customs" that make them feel secure and safe.

I do think schizophrenics see things that aren't there. Not only is it documented but I've personally experienced seeing things that aren't there so I know it can happen. We determine what is really there by having a number of people present agree on what else is present and the schizophrenic begs to differ. I saw non human creatures that were not there. I was lucky because they didn't talk to me.

These other people and creatures that singular people say are there but other people say aren't present may really exist but, if they do, they are not relevant to how scientific principles continue to determine the sequence of perceived events. If we decide that events don't happen in sequence, it may be true, but we will cease to be functional adults capable of expressing ourselves in a way that others will understand.

[koan]

The difference between my experience of delusion and peacegirl's is this:

I said something was there. Another person said it wasn't. I thought they had a problem with their eyes. Another person arrived and then another and all of them said the thing I observed wasn't there. I believed them. I continued to suffer from my delusions for awhile after but I recognized they were delusions. I fought with my mind because I knew it was lying to me. My delusions stopped when I was seven years old.

With the single exception of the car and hill incident after which I instantly sat in my seat as if nothing had happened and hoped no one had seen me embarrass myself. I lucked out. It hasn't happened since.

I will henceforth believe people if I say I see something and they say it isn't there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know exactly what a condition is, and I used the defining terms in my question.

Do you know what a condition is?

"Air is necessary for human life."

Light is necessary for sight.

"Human beings must have air to live."

Human beings must have light to see.

"Without air, human beings die (i.e. do not live)."

Without light, human beings cannot see.

"If a human being is alive, then that human being has air (to breathe)."

If a human being can see, then that human being is utilizing light.

The Concept of Necessary Conditions and Sufficient Conditions

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're a weaseling idiot. YOU are postulating light at the retina on Earth in YOUR model. Either it is newly existing light or it previously existed and had a location. Where was this light a moment beforehand? It had to be somewhere. All you are doing is ignoring the gaping holes and contradictions in your own account of efferent vision.

You are a stubborn mule Spacemonkey. You think that namecalling is going to serve you well, but it's not. I'm not talking to you until you address me with respect. Otherwise, don't even attempt to bump anymore posts because they won't get answered.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by But

It's 1, 2, or 3. False dichotomy.

I know that, and you know that. My point was to express peacegirl's very limited and very dichotomous thinking.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"Air is necessary for human life."

Light is necessary for sight)

"Human beings must have air to live."

Human beings must have light to see

"Without air, human beings die (i.e. do not live)."

Without light, human beings cannot see.

"If a human being is alive, then that human being has air (to breathe)."

If a human being can see, then that human being is utilizing light.

The Concept of Necessary Conditions and Sufficient Conditions

Yes, necessary conditions are necessary. I know what that means. I asked you WHY light was necessary and HOW it it is used for vision in the efferent model.

We know and can explain how and why air is a condition of life. Briefly (though I can go into great detail) our cells use oxygen as fuel for metabolic processes (growth, division, etc.). We intake oxygen and release metabolic waste products by breathing air. Without oxygen, our cells cannot function and they die and we die.

Explain why and how light is a condition for seeing in efferent vision.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a stubborn mule Spacemonkey. You think that namecalling is going to serve you well, but it's not. I'm not talking to you until you address me with respect. Otherwise, don't even attempt to bump anymore posts because they won't get answered.

You ARE a weaseling idiot. The question you are avoiding now is the same one you've been avoiding for years now. It's the exact same question. You've lost the right to any kind of respect here. You're absolutely nuts. If you want to be treated with respect then you need to stop behaving like a five-year old throwing a temper tantrum whenever you're asked a question you don't know how to answer.

[But]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I know that, and you know that. My point was to express peacegirl's very limited and very dichotomous thinking.

Do you think she will get it?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by koan

If words don't work, maybe pictures will.

Here is efferent vision cutting the travel time in half and the second is the brain efferently helping the body cut vision travel time to nil. Tell me which you believe in, peacegirl.

Koan wins the thread. Brava!

[But]

Originally Posted by koan

You can reasonably assume that a person will do things they are accustomed to. I am resistant to habit but I'm not like many others. Mostly, other people like to develop habits or "customs" that make them feel secure and safe.

I get it that you don't think it's an important point, but if they see something or talk to something, the details matter. Sorry if I sound like a schizophrenic or something.

I do think schizophrenics see things that aren't there. Not only is it documented but I've personally experienced seeing things that aren't there so I know it can happen.

That's begging the question.

We determine what is really there by having a number of people present agree on what else is present and the schizophrenic begs to differ. I saw non human creatures that were not there.

That's begging the question all the way.

I was lucky because they didn't talk to me.

Only if you're afraid of things that aren't there.

These other people and creatures that singular people say are there but other people say aren't present may really exist but, if they do, they are not relevant to how scientific principles continue to determine the sequence of perceived events. If we decide that events don't happen in sequence, it may be true,

There are some implicit assumptions in there. They are very common ones, almost universal among us "skeptics", which may make them harder to identify, but still. That events don't happen in sequence is not controversial, by the way.

but we will cease to be functional adults capable of expressing ourselves in a way that others will understand.

I don't think so. You would need to circumscribe or tone it down a bit if you don't want people to think you're crazy, of course.

Originally Posted by koan

The difference between my experience of delusion and peacegirl's is this:

I said something was there. Another person said it wasn't. I thought they had a problem with their eyes. Another person arrived and then another and all of them said the thing I observed wasn't there. I believed them.

You know about the experiment with the vertical bars where a group of people can get someone to openly deny something they see with their own eyes?

I continued to suffer from my delusions for awhile after but I recognized they were delusions.

Begging the question.

I fought with my mind because I knew it was lying to me. My delusions stopped when I was seven years old.

Really interesting. You suffered and fought with your mind (what exactly is that?), and more begging the question.

With the single exception of the car and hill incident after which I instantly sat in my seat as if nothing had happened and hoped no one had seen me embarrass myself. I lucked out. It hasn't happened since.

I will henceforth believe people if I say I see something and they say it isn't there.

Why not observe it and only talk to it if no one's looking? I mean, unless you get really angry because they're cheating or something.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by But

Do you think she will get it?

I don't think that she could be made to understand that water is wet if Lessans had said otherwise. Indeed, if there's anything that these threads have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, it's that she has no capacity whatsoever to question Lessans' claims -- and no real tolerance for anyone else doing so.


Still, hope springs eternal.

[Vivisectus]

Added to previous post:

I have gone over them time and time again. I basically printed the whole chapter for your convenience. Do you remember anything that he explained about how the brain works in relation to the eyes?

There were a lot of claims that sight works a certain way, but no observations that lead to the conclusion that it must work the way he says.

He even states at one point that he will conclusively prove that the eye is not a sense organ... but then seems to forget to include the proof. Or the observation that makes instant efferent sight a reasonable conclusion. Or any reason to assume sight works the way he says.

The only thing that even approaches it are his ideas about dog sight and infant sight. Both ideas are considered debunked by the scientific community, bt even if you do not accept the scientific consensus, both are easily explained using the accepted theory of sight: they are not incompatible with it.

So again I ask: what did he observe that made him conclude sight is instant and "efferent"? I am not interested in his claims: I know perfectly well what he thinks about sight. I am interested in knowing why he came to the conclusions he came to. That is not explained in the book at all.

What impossible things need to be true? I don't know how they calculate the trajectory to distant planets, but before you assume that time/light delay is the only factor that can account for landing accurately, I would think again.

In a different post I have shown you the things that would have to be going on that explain the observations of Io.

1: There is a delay in sight caused by the speed of light because the accepted theory of sight is true.
2: Io speeds up and slows down exactly enough to create the illusion, here on earth, that there is a delay in sight that corresponds to what we would expect if there was a delay in sight caused by the speed of light.
3: Jupiter shrinks and expands in a way we cannot detect from earth, making the orbit Io shrink and grow accordingly, again JUST enough to correspond with the expected delay if the accepted theory is correct. Or perhaps Io's Orbit takes it closer to Jupiter and further again in some way that we cannot detect: we always see it the same distance from Jupiter.

Amazingly, the same thing happens when we look at other planets, and again the illusion is somehow created that there is a delay in sight... but it matches exactly the number of light-minutes the planet is away from us! So whatever makes these moons speed up and slow down is exactly calibrated according to the distance between us and the object, and can only be observed from Earth. Observations from different places in the universe would create completely different results.

Even stranger: the factor involved is exactly the speed of light, which we have measured independently here on earth!

Like I said, Lessans is coming from an entirely different position but his observations are just as accurate. So who is right? Both can't be right.

What observations? I see claims, and common misconceptions about infant and dog sight, but I have not seen a single observation.

Indeed: both cannot be right. But the fact that our probes hit planets while we aim there where we do not see them rules your fathers ideas out. Also, see above: in order for him to be right, some mysterious galactic force seems to be deliberately making it seem like he is wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

It gets even worse: even supernovae are in on the conspiracy. If Lessans is right, then supernovae time the release of their neutrinos and their light in such a way as to create the illusion that we see in delayed time. And no matter how far away the supernova is, it always delays its release of light by exactly the amount of time necessary to create the illusion that we here on Earth -- and only we here on Earth, because observers on other planets would get wildly different results -- see with a delay that corresponds exactly to the time that it takes for light to travel that distance.


So again, it raises the question: What's so special about Earth that the entire Universe is conspiring to make us think that we see in delayed time? The gods must have a strange sense of humor.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It gets even worse: even supernovae are in on the conspiracy. If Lessans is right, then supernovae time the release of their neutrinos and their light in such a way as to create the illusion that we see in delayed time. And no matter how far away the supernova is, it always delays its release of light by exactly the amount of time necessary to create the illusion that we here on Earth -- and only we here on Earth, because observers on other planets would get wildly different results -- see with a delay that corresponds exactly to the time that it takes for light to travel that distance.


So again, it raises the question: What's so special about Earth that the entire Universe is conspiring to make us think that we see in delayed time? The gods must have a strange sense of humor.

"The Gods Must be Crazy", I would recomend you see it, if only for the scene of the Land Rover hanging from the limb of a large tree.

[koan]

Originally Posted by But

I get it that you don't think it's an important point, but if they see something or talk to something, the details matter. Sorry if I sound like a schizophrenic or something.

...

You know about the experiment with the vertical bars where a group of people can get someone to openly deny something they see with their own eyes?

....

Really interesting. You suffered and fought with your mind (what exactly is that?), and more begging the question.

Will think about this for a bit. Not quite sure where you're going with it but I'm willing to play along to find out. Have to go to work soon though, so later.

Yes, I fought with my mind. It is scary and frustrating to be looking at something and have other people tell you it isn't there. It's terrifying at the beginning. I don't know what made the hallucinations stop and worried for a long time that they would come back.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, necessary conditions are necessary. I know what that means. I asked you WHY light was necessary and HOW it it is used for vision in the efferent model.

We know and can explain how and why air is a condition of life. Briefly (though I can go into great detail) our cells use oxygen as fuel for metabolic processes (growth, division, etc.). We intake oxygen and release metabolic waste products by breathing air. Without oxygen, our cells cannot function and they die and we die.

Explain why and how light is a condition for seeing in efferent vision.

I don't need to go into detail. I just have to make a distinction between a necessary condition and a cause. Light alone does not cause sight. It is a necessary condition of sight. The afferent model states that light is all that is necessary for us to see. The efferent model states that light is a necessary condition for us to see the real world. Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this. It's never going to be resolved in here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It gets even worse: even supernovae are in on the conspiracy. If Lessans is right, then supernovae time the release of their neutrinos and their light in such a way as to create the illusion that we see in delayed time. And no matter how far away the supernova is, it always delays its release of light by exactly the amount of time necessary to create the illusion that we here on Earth -- and only we here on Earth, because observers on other planets would get wildly different results -- see with a delay that corresponds exactly to the time that it takes for light to travel that distance.


So again, it raises the question: What's so special about Earth that the entire Universe is conspiring to make us think that we see in delayed time? The gods must have a strange sense of humor.

How do you know what people would see on other planets? Aren't you speculating? Where's your data?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There were a lot of claims that sight works a certain way, but no observations that lead to the conclusion that it must work the way he says.

He even states at one point that he will conclusively prove that the eye is not a sense organ... but then seems to forget to include the proof. Or the observation that makes instant efferent sight a reasonable conclusion. Or any reason to assume sight works the way he says.

The only thing that even approaches it are his ideas about dog sight and infant sight. Both ideas are considered debunked by the scientific community, bt even if you do not accept the scientific consensus, both are easily explained using the accepted theory of sight: they are not incompatible with it.

So again I ask: what did he observe that made him conclude sight is instant and "efferent"? I am not interested in his claims: I know perfectly well what he thinks about sight. I am interested in knowing why he came to the conclusions he came to. That is not explained in the book at all.

In a different post I have shown you the things that would have to be going on that explain the observations of Io.

1: There is a delay in sight caused by the speed of light because the accepted theory of sight is true.
2: Io speeds up and slows down exactly enough to create the illusion, here on earth, that there is a delay in sight that corresponds to what we would expect if there was a delay in sight caused by the speed of light.
3: Jupiter shrinks and expands in a way we cannot detect from earth, making the orbit Io shrink and grow accordingly, again JUST enough to correspond with the expected delay if the accepted theory is correct. Or perhaps Io's Orbit takes it closer to Jupiter and further again in some way that we cannot detect: we always see it the same distance from Jupiter.

Amazingly, the same thing happens when we look at other planets, and again the illusion is somehow created that there is a delay in sight... but it matches exactly the number of light-minutes the planet is away from us! So whatever makes these moons speed up and slow down is exactly calibrated according to the distance between us and the object, and can only be observed from Earth. Observations from different places in the universe would create completely different results.

Even stranger: the factor involved is exactly the speed of light, which we have measured independently here on earth!

What observations? I see claims, and common misconceptions about infant and dog sight, but I have not seen a single observation.

Indeed: both cannot be right. But the fact that our probes hit planets while we aim there where we do not see them rules your fathers ideas out. Also, see above: in order for him to be right, some mysterious galactic force seems to be deliberately making it seem like he is wrong.

It does not rule his claim out. We can observe a planet in real time, but we still have to account for the planet's movement and its distance in order for probes to accurately reach their destination. It's not surprising to me that we don't aim at the place we see the planet because we have to account for these other factors.

And he didn't have any misconceptions about dog and infant sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I don't think that she could be made to understand that water is wet if Lessans had said otherwise. Indeed, if there's anything that these threads have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, it's that she has no capacity whatsoever to question Lessans' claims -- and no real tolerance for anyone else doing so.


Still, hope springs eternal.

I would not have to be made to understand that water is wet because Lessans would not have made a claim to the contrary. You're assuming that because he was my father I would accept anything he said regardless of whether it is true or not, but that's wrong. I don't have tolerance because I believe he was right. I have the right to stand my ground just like you have the right to stand your ground. Only when absolute proof is established will anyone change their positions.

[The Lone Ranger]

Really? Remember how you insisted for days that cameras don't see in "real time" like eyes supposedly do, because you thought that was what Lessans had said?

And how, when you discovered that that's not what Lessans had said, you instantly switched positions and even denied that you had said that cameras and eyes see differently? Remember that? The rest of us do, if you don't.