A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System can provide sight -- the detection of light -- to people who have gone blind from degenerative eye diseases like macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa. Ten percent of people over the age of 55 suffer from various stages of macular degeneration. Retinitis pigmentosa is an inherited disease that affects about 1.5 million people around the globe. Both diseases damage the eyes' photoreceptors, the cells at the back of the retina that perceive light patterns and pass them on to the brain in the form of nerve impulses, where the impulse patterns are then interpreted as images. The Argus II system takes the place of these photoreceptors.

HowStuffWorks "How does a "bionic eye" allow blind people to see?"

Yup, as the article you quoted explains, the device works by bypassing the retina's photoreceptors, and thus restores sight to the blind.

So you're admitting now that Lessans was wrong about how we see? After all, the Argus II does exactly what you said would disprove Lessans' claims about vision -- and it's by no means the best bionic eye available nowadays.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I have the suspicion that whatever the scenario, what would appeal to Lessans is what has right of way but your possible conclusion is a good one too. That is a common thread running through the examples.

That is the other thing all the examples have in common.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Happy days are here again!

To understand efferent vision we have to start off with the [premise] that the object is in view, otherwise what follows goes right back to the afferent account. The reason for him starting off with this [premise] is due to his observation regarding how the brain works, which is also an accurate observation.

The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts
as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses, and a
camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as
a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded,
they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects
held in relation and photographed by the brain.

Lessans never implied that we can see without photons at the eye. I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when light hasn't gotten to Earth where the retina is located, but that's because you don't understand efferent vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wow - so the light has not gotten to the earth, but photons have, and have done so faster that the speed of light?

What the hell? Photons are packets of light according to scientists. But the weird thing is we will get a mirror image of the object which means these packets don't carry the image at all. They reveal the object. Do you not see the confusion here? You are taking for granted that light has the image within the packet. Is there any question as to what a packet is, and is it real? Just asking, so please don't attack.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That IS rather hard to understand, as photons is what light seems to consist on. In boring old modern physics, anyway. Is this one of those cases where astute observation trumps boring old research again?

No, you're just not understanding that when we look out efferently, time is not involved. We are already in optical range because we can see the object (the mirror image so to speak), not because the light has or hasn't reached us yet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yup, as the article you quoted explains, the device works by bypassing the retina's photoreceptors, and thus restores sight to the blind.

So you're admitting now that Lessans was wrong about how we see? After all, the Argus II does exactly what you said would disprove Lessans' claims about vision -- and it's by no means the best bionic eye available nowadays.

I guess you're using that term differently than I am. It doesn't bypass; it takes the place of. I interpreted that as meaning that the retina is being replaced by artificial means.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is the issue when you say "photons are at the retina". You are making a claim about light. You need to support that claim, or explain it. You are making an assertion, again, and not backing it up with anything.

Conditions must be explained and supported too.

I said "instantly at the eye" thing. Meaning your claim that photons are instantly at the eye when we see, as well as being at the object. As to now what, now you must explain how the light photons come to be located at the eye at the same time they are located at the object. If you want to stick to your claim, you must support or explain it, because as it is you have light bi-locating which is not compatible with the known properties of light or the laws of physics.

It most certainly is compatible with the known properties of light or the laws of physics because light is still doing its thing. The only thing that changes, allowing us to see in real time is the way the brain and eyes work. This has less to do with light than with the eyes, yet people are fixated on the light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Ah, no argument, just assertion. Not so much a fan of maths when it contradicts your sacred beliefs, are you peacegirl?

An inverse square function never hits zero. Lessans is wrong.

It doesn't matter that light travels forever. We're talking about existing matter, and how the eyes work which has no bearing on the fact that the inverse square law never reaches zero.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you apply the right-of-way system, then you can get pretty absurd results. Your solution to this is to say "Ah yes, but that just would not happen because all people would be nice."

Yes they would want to be nice if they know that by showing consideration for the other, they will get what they want, which is their spouse's love and devotion.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet this very system is what the book proposes to ensure that relationships stay equitable and fair... but apparently it only works if it is only applied when the result is equitable and fair.

It seems we have hit yet another chicken-and-egg problem in LessansLand.

The results may not get him what he wants (at that moment) if his desire is infringing on his spouse's desire not to do what he wants done, but the long term benefits of the right-of-way system will get him exactly what he wants; a happy marriage. If he doesn't care about keeping the one he loves, who is telling him what to do? He can demand that his spouse give up her desire to his heart's content, but if resentment begins to grow on the part of his spouse, the responsibility for the failure of their marriage will rest on his shoulders, not hers.

Sure, I think a lot of people want to cuddle in bed. I have certainly wanted that, but my husband didn't like to cuddle. I learned early on that his desire not to cuddle is not placing any demands on me, so he had the right-of-way. The only difference is that, in the new world as opposed to this world, he would have done what I wanted to please me, but I wouldn't want him to sacrifice his desire to stretch and be left alone because that would be selfish of me to only think of my desire. If he was on the fence about whether to cuddle, he may have stayed a little while longer to make me feel loved and then go into his own bed. Bottom line, this right-of-way system prevents arguments, and arguments aren't good for a happy marriage.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So... your desire for a cuddle was not as important as your ex-husbands desire not to have one because of... what? Why is you giving up your desire not considered "placing any demands on you", while his giving up his is? The only difference I can see is the number of people required... and as we have seen, that does not work as a way to determine which desire should get preference.

In your effort to confuse the issue, it's actually funny how you're twisting things. Why is this so hard for you to understand when a 10 year old could understand this, unless you're trying to discredit everything Lessans has to say (even when it's perfectly clear) for your own satisfaction?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Can you perhaps explain in clear and precise language when a desire is considered to place demands on another person, and when it is not?

Let's start again. If I am eating dinner and demand that my husband sit with me until I'm finished, even though he wants to go into the family room to watch the game, I am the one that must yield. I am placing a demand on him to satisfy my desire (which is not a true hurt for if it was, he couldn't do it under the changed conditions), which forces him to sacrifice his desire. He is not asking me to do anything for him, which means that his desire has the right-of-way. I can get mad at him if I want, but this would be a display of selfishness on my part, which I don't want to display if I want to remain happily married. There are other solutions that could satisfy both of us. I could take a tray into the family room and watch the game with him while I'm eating, or I could eat with my spouse before the game comes on. This right-of-way system allows both parties to see who is in the wrong, and prevents arguments from arising before they have a chance to start.

[davidm]

"Honey, would you stay with me a moment?"

"What's wrong, dear?"

"I believe I'm having a heart attack. … What are you doing, dear?"

"I'm lifting your skirt. You're bent over the dinner table, next to a plate of spaghetti and meatballs, and it seems you're in the mood for rumpy-pumpy."

"I'm bent over the dinner table because I'm having a heart attack, dear. I'm in terrible pain. Would you please drop my skirt, put your penis back inside your translucent sex robe and call 911?"

"Now you're making demands on me, honey, whereas I'm demanding nothing of you."

"You're demanding sex while I'm dying!"

"I'm sorry, dear, I misinterpreted your posture as an invitation to doing the dirty. Well, I can't possibly strike the first blow by demanding sex when you're not in the mood. So I'll be off now to the family room, to watch the big football game on the tube. If the Giants win this one, they wrap up a playoff spot."

"Would you mind calling 911 first, dear?"

"I'm sorry, dear, now you're making a demand on me when I'm demanding nothing of you. Good luck with the heart attack."

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

.. Once you get that straight, let me know and I'll answer the rest of your post.

That, or you could stop acting like a petulant teenager and answer the parts of questions that require more than parroting daddy's words back at me whether I agree with him or not. It's ok, your menfolk aren't around to keep you in your place so you can speak for yourself now. It won't hurt and you can even disagree with a man and not get in trouble for it on the internet.

You said that you wanted your husband to stay and cuddle with you because it made you feel more loved. That's important and not selfish at all and it makes me sad to think that you felt that it was or allowed someone else to convince your needs were unimportant. I spent a lot of time the other night thinking about this and trying to articulate why it was important to me and came to the conclusion that after eliminating all of the social and cultural expectations that many women are raised with it still makes the experience far more intimate and enjoyable and that's a good enough reason on it's own. But, I suppose one woman's doormat is another woman's normal so luckily we all get to pick the men that we want.

Anyway, back to my bland example that has nothing to do with sex.

Let's try a more straightforward example. Both person A and person B want to go see a movie together. Person A wants to see Superman and Person B wants to see Batman so there isn't any significant difference in style between the movies and they both like to see action and lots of stuff getting blown up so neither is going to get scared or go deaf from the explosions. It's the first movie that they've ever seen together so it has nothing to do with whose turn it is to choose. Which person has the right of way?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess you're using that term differently than I am. It doesn't bypass; it takes the place of. I interpreted that as meaning that the retina is being replaced by artificial means.

Well Peacegirl certainly didn't dissapoint me, I was wondering how she would dodge and weasel to keep from admiting that her father was wrong. Now she's quibbling over 'Bypass' and 'Replace', which in this case mean the same thing. In both the systems described, the original retina remains and is 'Bypassed' by the bionic system. In the system in the article there is an electronic array implanted behind the existing, non-functional, retina that receives radio signals from the outside, effectively 'Bypassing' the existing retina. In both systems referenced in this thread the existing retina is 'Bypassed' and it's function is 'replaced' with a bionic system. There was nothing said about the existing retina being removed and 'replaced', but even if that were to happen the effect would be to 'Bypass' the non-functioning retina by 'replacing' it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter that light travels forever. We're talking about existing matter, and how the eyes work which has no bearing on the fact that the inverse square law never reaches zero.

Right, so you've gone from disputing that non-absorbed light bounces off objects and travels away, to agreeing that this happens but disputing how far it can then travel, to now agreeing completely with the afferent account that the non-absorbed light is reflected and travels forever. Do have any idea at all of what it is that you wish to dispute?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never talked about someone's motives, so what are you talking about thedoc? He only said that people move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is true regardless of what their motives are.

You are so wrong, there is no way to determine that a person is 'moving in the direction of greater satisfaction' without taking their motives into account, so Lessans must have tried to imagine what each person's motives were in his thought experiment. A person's motives will determine what is more satisfying at any particular time, if they move against their motives, they are not moving in the direction of greater satisfaction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

12:00. I don't understand what you're getting at Spacemonkey. Light travels, but the object that is seen is not time related.

Yay! A direct answer! Thank you.

But do you see the problem now? Firstly, you no longer have us seeing things in real time, but instead at a 2 minute delay. The Sun is ignited at 12:00, but you now say we will see it only two minutes later at 12:02. That is not real time vision.

Secondly, you have the same light at the Sun at 12:00 and then at the retina 93 million miles away two minutes later at 12:02. How did these particular photons get from the one place to the other? If they managed this without traveling through the intervening distance, then by definition they have just teleported there. And if they have gotten from the Sun to the retina by traveling, then you have this light traveling at 4 times the speed of light.

Do you agree that this is a problem? Or are you happy to have vision delayed by 2 minutes and light traveling 4 times faster than light?

How do you intend to fix this? Remember that any solution you offer must explain when light is first at the retina, where that specific light came from, when it was located at wherever it came from, and how it got from the one place to the other.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained this over and over and over and over again.

You've "explained" nothing. You just said that you knew it was hard to understand how photons can be at the eye, when they haven't reached they eye. We are waiting for you to explain how photons can be at the eye when they haven't reached the eye. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

We're not depending on light for the image. We're seeing the object directly.

How?

In the efferent account, which is the exact opposite of the afferent account, light only has to be surrounding the object to be seen. Distance and time are not factors (which you can't seem to reconcile); only size and brightness.

So, again, dum-dum, do photons have to be at the eye or not?

The problem with your account, of course, is not just that it is mind-bendingly dumb and incoherent. It is also effortlessly refuted, and everyone watches as you refuse to respond to all the refutations.

How many times have we been over this one?

You say time and distance are not involved. Yet we know the distance to the moon. It takes light about 1.25 seconds to reach the moon from the earth.

As I have previously noted, if Lessans were right, and the light just had to "be at" the moon to be seen, then if we fired a laser from the earth to the moon, we should see the light on the moon 1.25 seconds after it leaves the earth. Please don't start your idiocy about how these time intervals are too short to measure accurately. They are measured by machines that can make accurate readings of intervals far shorter than this.

Instead, we have to wait 2.5 seconds to see the light. This proves without any doubt that we can't see the light until it has been reflected off the surface of the moon, and made the return trip to our eyes. This also means we are seeing the moon as it was 1.25 seconds in the past.

Therefore, Lessans was wrong. A simple experiment like this, which has been done for decades, proves that his whole work was utter rubbish.

Now let's watch you fail to deal with this yet again.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained this over and over and over and over again. We're not depending on light for the image. We're seeing the object directly. In the efferent account, which is the exact opposite of the afferent account, light only has to be surrounding the object to be seen. Distance and time are not factors (which you can't seem to reconcile); only size and brightness.

That violates the known laws of physics. What is known about the physics of light and vision is that light travels to the eye from an object that is large enough and bright enough to be seen, and the light takes time to travel the distance from the object to the eyes. Any account that disagrees with this description, violates the "Known Laws of Physics". If you knew anything at all about what science says about light and vision, you would already know this, and we wouldn't need to teach you. You are really acting like a stubborn, ignorant school child, you grew up on your fathers fundie book and can't accept anything else.

[davidm]

Oh, Peacegirl? Perhaps you’d like to read and respond to this.

Here, I will even reproduce it for you here, with the bolded parts for emphasis.

Light travels through space at just over 186,000 miles per second. The moon is just under 250,000 miles from Earth, so light from the Moon's surface has to travel more than one second (about 1.3 seconds) to reach us.

Among other things, the astronauts left reflecting mirrors on the moon. By shining a laser beam on those mirrors from Earth, and measuring the time (less than 3 seconds) it takes to see its reflection, the length of the round trip can be easily calculated to within a few inches!

There goes Lessans’ claims, flushed down the toilet!

If you've watched any of the videos of the moon landings, you might have noticed that the radio responses from the moon walking astronauts sometimes included a delayed echo of the questions. That also was a result of the 3 seconds it takes for a radio signal to travel to and from the moon, since radio waves are another form of light waves.

None of this would be true and observed, if Lessans were right. But it is observed, it is true, so Lessans is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yup, as the article you quoted explains, the device works by bypassing the retina's photoreceptors, and thus restores sight to the blind.

So you're admitting now that Lessans was wrong about how we see? After all, the Argus II does exactly what you said would disprove Lessans' claims about vision -- and it's by no means the best bionic eye available nowadays.

This is what I read. Obviously, patterns can be created that can be interpreted, but is this ever going to give them normal sight? I don't think so.

The VPU processes the video into instructions that are sent back to the glasses via a cable and then wirelessly transmitted to the implant in the eye. Electrodes there emit small electrical pulses that stimulate the retina’s remaining cells, sending the visual information along the optic nerve to the brain.
The brain perceives light patterns from this data, which patients learn to interpret -- giving them back their sight.


Read more: World’s only bionic eyes keep getting better | Fox News

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess you're using that term differently than I am. It doesn't bypass; it takes the place of. I interpreted that as meaning that the retina is being replaced by artificial means.

You might want to read some of the linked articles again -- including the technical paper which explains in great detail how the devices work -- by bypassing the non-functional photoreceptors of the retina and stimulating the optic nerve directly. Some of the devices involve implanting artificial photoreceptors into the eye; others have the photoreceptors outside the eye. Either way, the devices work by bypassing the non-functional retinae and stimulating the optic nerve directly.

Which you would know, if you had bothered to actually read the linked articles.

What's the matter? Afraid to read up on something that -- by your own criteria -- disproves Lessans' claims regarding sight? (A rhetorical question, I know.)

Or perhaps you're going to insist that the people who designed and built these devices don't understand how they function?



Do note that the best models now available are much superior to the Argus II, and allow their users to recognize faces and to read. And the designers are confident that we'll soon be able to build bionic eyes that provide better vision than do our "natural" eyes.


Watch those goalposts fly!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter that light travels forever. We're talking about existing matter, and how the eyes work which has no bearing on the fact that the inverse square law never reaches zero.

So the inverse square law doesn't support Lessans at all, and you're happy light can travel forever. Good, I'm glad we've cleaned that up.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that changes, allowing us to see in real time is the way the brain and eyes work. This has less to do with light than with the eyes, yet people are fixated on the light.

One of the things you have compleatly failed to explain is how the brain and eye work to make efferient vision possible.

People are posting about light because Lessans made that one part of his explination, and was compleatly wrong about it.

If it's about the brain/eye system, explain it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is what I read. Obviously, patterns can be created that can be interpreted, but is this ever going to give them normal sight? I don't think so.

The VPU processes the video into instructions that are sent back to the glasses via a cable and then wirelessly transmitted to the implant in the eye. Electrodes there emit small electrical pulses that stimulate the retina’s remaining cells, sending the visual information along the optic nerve to the brain.
The brain perceives light patterns from this data, which patients learn to interpret -- giving them back their sight.


Read more: World’s only bionic eyes keep getting better | Fox News

Perhaps you would like to define "Normal Sight", but a word of advice for you alone, make sure the goalpoasts are movable and the definition is something you can weasel out of when someone posts a link that will meet that definition. I'm pretty sure everyone here is wearing chest waders to get through the BS you've been posting.

Waders (footwear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[LadyShea]

In the efferent account, which is the exact opposite of the afferent account, light only has to be surrounding the object to be seen.

You should have stuck to this and not made claims about light being located where it can't be located....but you didn't.

So, do you retract your claims about light being in physical contact with the retina or camera film instantly when we see something, without having to travel to the retina or camera film and violating the laws of physics due to bilocation, or are you going to support that claim?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't believe in magic LadyShea.

Now tell me, did it ever
occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally
accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately
symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult
since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact,
it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby 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.

This entire account is predicated on the fact that the object (not the light) is within physical range. Do you understand what that means? It means that we're not waiting for anything to arrive. If we can see the object, the light that allows us to see the object has to already be at the eye. You are still thinking in terms of distance and the time it takes for light to arrive, which doesn't play a part in this account.

You are the one who stated that light is physically located on the retina, instantly, so you are the one that put light "within physical range". Also, without light "in physical range", photography is not possible at all. And you just stated, again, that light is "at the eye". I am thinking in terms of distance and time because you keep making claims about light being located at the eye. The laws of physics and the immutable properties of light don't allow for light to be somewhere without physically getting there by some mechanism. If you don't want to talk about time and distance, quit making impossible claims about light.

And since you brought it up

it can be seen that no object, other than light, is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes

Agreed, nothing other than light gets a reaction from the eyes. The eyes developed to sense light is why.

because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it

Uh, signals from the photoreceptor travel along the optic nerves. The photorecpetors are sensory neurons and light impinges on them.

although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

Light is something external that strikes nerves in the eye...just like the other senses. What is the "something external" that strikes nerve endings in the ear, BTW? Do you even know? What is functionally different between the sensory neurons in the ear and sensory neurons in the eye, other than the type of stimuli they react to?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...it has been proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, that MAN'S WILL IS NOT FREE.

Has not!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no debate...

Is too!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...we're never going to have a common denominator to discuss this model, but that does not mean this model isn't plausible.

Does too!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Each partner would do everything possible to please the other one...

Would not!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

..the desire of the other person would take precedence.

Would not!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that partner would never want to take advantage of his partner's generosity.

Would too!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The example of the woman in labor wanting her husband to be there, do you actually think Vivisectus is right in his analysis that the man would rather go play golf? This is so disturbing to me because he has taken this concept to the absurd, and the sad part is he thinks he's right and he's spreading around a false understanding.

Is not!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sure, I think a lot of people want to cuddle in bed. I have certainly wanted that, but my husband didn't like to cuddle. I learned early on that his desire not to cuddle is not placing any demands on me, so he had the right-of-way. The only difference is that, in the new world as opposed to this world, he would have done what I wanted to please me, but I wouldn't want him to sacrifice his desire to stretch and be left alone because that would be selfish of me to only think of my desire. If he was on the fence about whether to cuddle, he may have stayed a little while longer to make me feel loved and then go into his own bed. Bottom line, this right-of-way system prevents arguments, and arguments aren't good for a happy marriage.

How did this work out for you? Did you have an argument free, happy and successful marriage? If you did, why aren't the two of you still married to each other?