A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not weaseling. You're just not seeing how this model works. Maybe I'm not explaining it well, but this doesn't change the fact that it is a plausible model.

The fact is that there is no model because you are not explaining it at all. You are just asserting a few conclusions from "Astute Observations" that have not been revealed and are probably non-existant.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see the light obviously.

So, you agree that when we see an object what we are seeing is the light that is reflected or emitted by the object and not the object itself. Is that correct?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is emitted at different points in time depending on how old a star is, but this is not as important as how large and bright a star is, in order for us to see it. Olber's paradox says that we don't see all stars at once because some are from so long ago that the light hasn't reached us yet. There are a few more, but none of these theories are related to the efferent model.

If efferent vision is correct and we see the object and don't need to wait for the light, we should see the object whether the light has arrived or not. We are supposed to be able to see the Sun before the light arrives, the stars are just Suns that are farther away. If we need to wait for the light to signal the brain to look out and see what is there to be seen, that contradicts what Lessans said about the Sun being turned on at noon. There were no photons at the eye to signal the brain to look for the sun, yet he claimed that we could see the Sun instantly. So do the photons stimulate the brain to look for the object, or can we see the object instantly, before the photons arrive?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that. In fact, a bionic eye is just a replacement part for what is not functioning. But it doesn't account for what is happening inside the brain.

Actually, yes you did say that. Repeatedly. In reponse to people asking what could possibly falsify Lessans' claims.

Unfortunately for you, you were too ignorant regarding the field to know that we already have devices that disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision -- by your own criteria. Must be uncomfortable being hoist by your own petard like that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I never said that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is interesting. If a blind person could see from a bionic eye, it would be proof of afferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We'll just have to wait and see if any of them work, but the one that would prove afferent vision correct is the Microsystem System Visual Prosthesis (MIVIP) because it sends impulses directly from the optic nerve to the visual cortex.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If bionic eyes are eventually perfected by allowing signals to be interpreted in the visual cortex and sight being restored, then Lessans would have been wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are still simply saying that light is at the retina. You have not explained how it gets there.

Do the non absorbed photons travel out from the object? Do they surround the object like an atmosphere?

Bump

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, you agree that when we see an object what we are seeing is the light that is reflected or emitted by the object and not the object itself. Is that correct?

Yes that's correct, but we see the light because of the source. We will not see the light if the source of that light is too far away.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is exactly what reading is. This typed symbol, a, is just a black pattern on a white background. You must interpret that pattern to see it as the letter a and the corresponding meaning of the letter a otherwise it is just a pattern.

Yes you are, unless you think reading braille or sign language is not true reading either.

Read - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
a (1) : to receive or take in the sense of (as letters or symbols) especially by sight or touch (2) : to study the movements of (as lips) with mental formulation of the communication expressed (3)

No, it is not real seeing. It is a mental connection you are making with the shape and what that shape represents. It is not seeing the letters visually, which is what this discussion is about.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes that's correct, but we see the light because of the source. We will not see the light if the source of that light is too far away.

Well that's a 180, when did you decide that? And you say you are not inconsistent or a flip flopper?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it is not real seeing. It is a mental connection you are making with the shape and what that shape represents.

Yes, that is what reading is.

It is not seeing the letters visually, which is what this discussion is about.

But some bionic eye patients did read the letters visually. That's what led to this tangent defining reading, you said that reading letters using their bionic eyes wasn't real reading.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, do you stand by your previous answers to me or not?

[LadyShea]

What is "actual lightning" again?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The actual star; just like we see an actual rainbow, or an actual cloud, or actual lightning, or an actual beam of light.

Light is traveling at a finite speed, which means that it is subject to space/time, but we don't see light (photons); we see the actual image that is emitting that light. We can detect light from our instruments, and we can detect photons coming from that light source if there is debris in the atmosphere that is reflecting that light, but that is a very different animal than being able to decode that light into an image in the brain.

[peacegirl]

But his desire is not imposing on her. Does it require her to do anything? No. But for her to satisfy her desire, he has to give up his. Therefore, she is the one that must yield. Geeeeze, why is this so difficult? This is the problem in a nutshell; people are trying to find flaws that aren't there.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...but then we run straight into some problems:

1: My childrens desire to eat meals and sleep in a house requires me to do something.

Yes, it does, and you can do it or not do it. But you wouldn't not want to do it, which you're failing to grasp because you want to make this simple principle into something that is anything but what it actually does to preserve a healthy relationship. You want Lessans to be wrong in the worst way which is clouding your thinking.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Excellent! So according to the right-of-way system, my desire to smoke crack cocaine gets right of way over my kids desire to eat meals and sleep indoors, but you feel that in a world where the circumstances were different, this would not matter. Glad we cleared that up.

You have a responsibility to those children Vivisectus. You are creating a situation where the right-of-way doesn't apply because in actuality you don't have the right-of-way to bring children into the world who cannot fend for themselves, and then expect them to feed and cloth themselves. You are trying to find a flaw which doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

My desire to smoke crack cocaine does not require them to do anything. So my desire to smoke crack cocaine gets right of way over their desire to eat meals and sleep in a house.

It does if that's what you want, but you are hurting them if you do this, and you know it. They wouldn't blame you if you did, but you won't get any satisfaction becoming incapable of taking care of your family when this is a responsibility that you took on when you took a wife and had a family.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So I am to gather that this rule only works in an environment were people already do not want to hurt anyone's feelings or treat them unfairly in any way... but wait a minute! Wasn't this rule supposed to tell us what was unfair, what constitutes an infringement, what is an unreasonable expectation? Is it not a case of "If you want to know what is an infringement and what isn't, simply apply this rule to find out?"

That is very true, although in cases where it's murky, there will be people hired to carefully analyze what constitutes a hurt in specific situations. It is a hurt to leave a child without food or clothes and shirk your responsibility to care for them. You do not have the right-of-way to hurt them, but you can if you want to. The irony is that you could never hurt them by leaving them and doing your own thing without a thought to their well-being.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What exactly is the use of a rule to determine what is OK to expect and do, if you can apparently not use it to determine what is OK to expect and do?

It's a no brainer in most situations what is and what is not a hurt, but as I noted just now, in situations where it is unclear, there will be people that will be trained to specifically figure this out. The fact that certain situations may be unclear are probably the kind of situations that would not create the kind of hurt you would hear on the evening news. These would be small issues in comparison to the more serious ones. Nevertheless, science would determine what is a hurt what isn't based on the standard of what a hurt actually is. There are some hurts that are not true hurts, but imaginary hurts.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

2: My wife's desire to have me attend the birth of our child requires me to do something, and give up my desire to go fishing. So my desire to go fishing gets right of way over her desire to attend the birth.

Sure it requires you to do something. Ultimately you have the right-of-way, but why would you not want to show your love to your wife and family in a situation like this? Going fishing would be the least desirable choice under the circumstances because seeing your infant born would give you great joy. Your reasoning has become absurd, which is why you are failing to see the total picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Excellent: so you agree that my desire to go fishing gets right of way. And it is not quite so absurd, you know. All I have done is up the stakes, so to speak, to show you the inherent inequality of the rule. There is no real difference between this and your ex-husbands lack of cuddlyness - but I will get back to that later.

This isn't really a rule. You can do whatever you want and you would not be blamed for going fishing. But this is a nutty example because you, yourself, would want to see your baby born. Not only that, even if you were not the father, wanting to make your wife happy in a situation like this, would prevent you from choosing to go fishing which would not be showing your love at all. This lack of interest or care for your wife under duress would justify her lack of interest in you, and her desire to find someone who does love her. If you want your wife to love you, you have to show love for her, and you would not be in an extreme situation like this. This does not compare to who gets the right-of-way when one is telling the other to do something that the other could have done for himself had he remembered.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So far your only answer to this is the statement that there would be special circumstances, in which this would simply never come up. But that just means that special circumstances are needed to make this system useful: at heart, it is a means for avoiding injustice that would only work in a world where there is no injustice for it to avoid.

Having a baby is a special circumstance, do you not agree? If a special circumstance came up such as a birth of a baby, there would be nothing to keep a husband away from seeing his baby born. Not only would he want this for himself; he would want to show his love to his wife who needs him at that moment. Wild horses couldn't keep him away. You deserve two duh's for that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I rather think the duh is on you. The "special circumstances" do not refer to the events in the examples. Let me lead you through it bit by bit:

Your statement boils down to:

"If two people have desires which cannot both be met, then a desire that does not require active participation from the other person gets right of way over a desire which does require active participation, and this is always fair".

No, it doesn't work that way. You are taking the human element out of it, which obviously does take into consideration the situation at hand. In the situation with the wife having a baby, she is asking a favor of her husband to be there with her, which she cannot do for herself. You can call it a favor if you want to, although it wouldn't be a favor if he wants to see his own child being born. Considering that in the new world no one would take advantage of the other, he would want to be there for her in a situation like this. People will do everything they can to show their love for each other, for their own security that their spouse won't have a justification to look elsewhere. And what kind of love would it be showing her if he chose to go fishing on such a special occasion?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But as we have seen, this is not a good way to determine if it is ethically OK to act on a desire at all. Some desires are far more important than others: there is no simple one-size-fits-all solution. My childrens desire to eat meals is a LOT more important than my desire for a fancy sportscar, and my wife's desire for support during childbirth is a LOT more important than my desire to go fishing, just to name two big examples.

That's true. That is the human element that is dependent on the circumstance; the asking of a favor when you cannot do something for yourself or when you need moral support. Of course in situations like these each partner would desire helping the other because no advantage is being taken. You are reducing this to an absurdity. That doesn't mean this principle doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But even in your own examples, it simply does not work. Let us say your mum has passed away a day before... does your husbands desire not to cuddle get right of way over your desire for some emotional support?

Obviously not. And yet you categorically stated that your husbands desire to be somewhere else in stead gets right of way, because he is not asking anything of you, and you are asking something from him!

In the new world the husband gets right-of-way to do anything he wants. What is most important here, is will he want to? The less she makes demands on him in situations where she can do certain things for herself without imposing on him unnecessarily, the more he will respond when a situation arises that calls for a loving response.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You can try to hand-wave that away and say "Ah but that just would not happen", but that is neither here nor there: you present it as a rule, a guideline, a means for determining what is OK and what is not. Using this rule to determine what is OK to ask and expect of a person will make sure your marriage is equitable and harmonious, you claim.

It will because everyone knows there are differences between telling someone to bring you the newspaper because you forgot it, when he is in the middle of doing something and doesn't feel like bringing it up when you could have done this for yourself (and is taking advantage), and asking your spouse to be at the birth of his child, or asking to be cuddled because you have lost someone dear to you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But as we can clearly see, it simply does not work. Just like efferent sight needs sight to be afferent first, this rule requires you to determine if something is reasonable first, and only then can you use it to determine what is reasonable without getting unreasonable results.

No Vivisectus. Efferent sight does not require the brain to interpret an image afferently when there's no image in the light if the object is not present. It's amazing how you are trying to discredit these credible claims in the weirdest way possible. It doesn't fly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is "actual lightning" again?

Lightning is extremely hot plasma. Plasma is matter. We are able to see matter because there are enough photons present to allow us to see the lightning strike.
-------------------------------------------
I think you're mixing up photons and charged particles. In the lightning strike, the movement of charged particles is occuring. This then gives off photons.

Photons and lighting

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are able to see matter because there are enough photons present to allow us to see the lightning strike.

LOL you just told Angakuk that we "see the light". Are you back to we see the "actual object"?

What do we see when we see lightning, peacegirl? Do we see the light, or do we see the plasma?

Flip Flop, Flip Flop

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes that's correct

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, do you stand by your previous answers to me or not?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an explosion is bright enough for us to see it, it doesn't mean the light has traveled all the way to Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that if light is bright enough to be seen we can see it. I said if the object is bright enough we can see it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see everything in real time

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we're seeing light in real time, but this doesn't mean we can see it before it gets to us. Anything with a finite speed that is traveling from one point to another is not going to be seen before it arrives.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say we see starlight. He said we see stars. Stars are made up of gases which are mass. That's what we see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can see any kind of explosion if it's within our field of view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seeing light that comes from a flame, a lamp, or a star is not the same thing as seeing the actual light source whether it's from a flame, a lamp, or a star.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stars are made up of gases which are mass. That's what we see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seeing light that comes from a flame, a lamp, or a star is not the same thing as seeing the actual light source whether it's from a flame, a lamp, or a star.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can detect light but that's not the same thing as seeing a light bulb. We can detect light, but that's not the same thing as seeing the Sun. We can detect light, but that's not the same thing as seeing a flame. Can you at least agree that photons that are emitted from the Sun are not the same thing as the Sun from which they are derived?

LOL

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your questions are premature Christina. There is no way I can explain the raising of children in the new world and do it justice before you have a grasp of his first discovery.

And since no one will ever have a grasp on it, that means never. Do you think that's what your dad would want - to never have the rest of the book see the light of day because you're too stubborn to learn about vision?

Like an adult? What a strange thing to say. Where am I not being an adult?

Most intelligent adults are open minded enough to change their conclusions when presented with new evidence. When I first saw you on IIDB and didn't know that he was your father you came across as a very young girl because you verbally stamp your feet and pitch a fit when confronted with facts that you don't like and that are inconvenient. I've never seen anyone with an approach like yours that wasn't a fundamentalist based on a book of long outdated knowledge.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

If everyone (or anyone) did agree with the first two discoveries what would you say next?

I don't know what I'd say next. Maybe I wouldn't say anything. Maybe I would relax a little, and do some gardening.

You mean that you've been trying to get someone, anyone to agree with the first two discoveries for 10 years without even an idea of how you would proceed after that or if you would try to proceed at all? These are the kinds of things that make me wonder if you're trolling. No one that is serious about their work does shit like this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, yes you did say that. Repeatedly. In reponse to people asking what could possibly falsify Lessans' claims.

Unfortunately for you, you were too ignorant regarding the field to know that we already have devices that disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision -- by your own criteria. Must be uncomfortable being hoist by your own petard like that.

If it disproves Lessans' claims, then go your merry way Lone. Why would you stay at some weird thread that is put out by some crackpot? Just go our merry way, and teach what you have learned. No one is worse for the wear.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL you just told Angakuk that we "see the light". Are you back to we see the "actual object"?

What do we see when we see lightning, peacegirl? Do we see the light, or do we see the plasma?

Flip Flop, Flip Flop

No no no. The object IS the matter that is interacting with the light. The light itself shows nothing at all. What is it that you don't understand LadyShea? You want so much to believe that Lessans is wrong and that you can prove him wrong and be made the most knowledgeable on this thread. You will not allow yourself to accept that maybe he's not wrong, and you are not the most knowledgeable on this thread because that would be hard for you to accept now that you've committed yourself to proving he's wrong. Keep trying. It's okay. That is what you should do if you feel the need, but it won't turn up any proof that he is, in fact, wrong because he isn't. :-(

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, do you stand by your previous answers to me or not?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No no no. The object IS the matter that is interacting with the light. The light itself shows nothing at all. What is it that you don't understand LadyShea?

You are a self contained clusterfuck. You have no idea how your model works so just keep throwing random words out to see what sticks. I don't understand what you are saying because you don't understand what you are saying.

Do you not see the blatant contradictions in your statements? I bolded them for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well that's a 180, when did you decide that? And you say you are not inconsistent or a flip flopper?

No it isn't. The farther from the source, the less photons are available. In the case of light from a laser, the farther away from the source, the dimmer the light will be until there's no light at all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it isn't. The farther from the source, the less photons are available. In the case of light from a laser, the farther away from the source, the dimmer the light will be until there's no light at all.

Non-sequitur. This response has nothing at all to do with my post.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the flip flop? I have always said that light must interact with matter. It is the matter that light reveals. We don't see photons.

The Interaction of Light and Matter

No no no. The object IS the matter that is interacting with the light. The light itself shows nothing at all. What is it that you don't understand LadyShea?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are a self contained clusterfuck. You have no idea how your model works so just keep throwing random words out to see what sticks. I don't understand what you are saying because you don't understand what you are saying.

Do you not see the blatant contradictions in your statements? I bolded them for you.

Clusterfuck? Is calling me names your last defense in an indefensible argument?