A revolution in thought - Page 1111

thedoc · #**27751** 06-21-2013, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a woman knows that her husband is not going to ask her to fulfill unnecessary favors (favors that he can do for himself), it creates a desire in the woman (this is human nature) to want to help him by asking if there is anything she can do for him, even if she has to go out of her way on some occasions. In the new world you would hear this, "Honey, is there anything you would like me to bring to you before I come upstairs?" Or, "Honey, are you thirsty, I don't mind bringing you that lemonade you enjoy?" That is much nicer than having him yell down to you to bring something to him when you're in the middle of doing something, which is a euphemistic way of telling you that you better had, or else get blamed for not fulfilling your duty as a wife. This constant imposition has caused serious riffs in relationships. Why wouldn't a husband or wife want to do what they are capable of doing for themselves, when they know that the less they impose on the other, the less friction there will be, which would be the fault of the one making the demand?

Bullshit, this is not human nature, while some couples may opperate this way it does not apply to everyones preferences. I know of couples where the wife waits on the husband hand and foot, and both are content and happy with the arrangment, but in many of these cases the husband works and the wife stays at home. In other cases the husband is content to do for himself and get his own things like drinks and serving himself meals. There is no one arrangment that suits all people and there are as many combinations as there are couples. Human nature is variable and cannot be nailed down to one scenario that will fit all situations. It took me a few years to break my wife of asking if she could get things for me, it still isn't perfect but it's better. When I want something that she can do for me, I ask, and she doesn't seem to mind, and she does the same, and doesn't expect me to just do things without being asked. In a healthy relationship there is free and open comunication without unnecessary hostility or acusation.

peacegirl · #**27752** 06-22-2013, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a woman knows that her husband is not going to ask her to fulfill unnecessary favors (favors that he can do for himself), it creates a desire in the woman (this is human nature) to want to help him by asking if there is anything she can do for him, even if she has to go out of her way on some occasions. In the new world you would hear this, "Honey, is there anything you would like me to bring to you before I come upstairs?" Or, "Honey, are you thirsty, I don't mind bringing you that lemonade you enjoy?" That is much nicer than having him yell down to you to bring something to him when you're in the middle of doing something, which is a euphemistic way of telling you that you better had, or else get blamed for not fulfilling your duty as a wife. This constant imposition has caused serious riffs in relationships. Why wouldn't a husband or wife want to do what they are capable of doing for themselves, when they know that the less they impose on the other, the less friction there will be, which would be the fault of the one making the demand?

Bullshit, this is not human nature, while some couples may opperate this way it does not apply to everyones preferences. I know of couples where the wife waits on the husband hand and foot, and both are content and happy with the arrangment, but in many of these cases the husband works and the wife stays at home.

Who is arguing with this thedoc? If they are both happy, that's great. This only applies when someone isn't happy with the arrangement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

In other cases the husband is content to do for himself and get his own things like drinks and serving himself meals. There is no one arrangment that suits all people and there are as many combinations as there are couples.

That is true, but there is one thing that cannot be ignored, and that is the desire of both individuals. If they are not happy to do something, it becomes a sacrifice, and if this is done long enough, frequently enough, and with the expectation that someone should always give in, there's a potential problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Human nature is variable and cannot be nailed down to one scenario that will fit all situations.

No it can't, but there are certain situations that will draw out a person's loving side in contrast to their resentful side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

It took me a few years to break my wife of asking if she could get things for me, it still isn't perfect but it's better.

Why did you do that? Because you weren't happy. If one of the partners isn't happy there is a conflict and somebody has to give in one way or another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

When I want something that she can do for me, I ask, and she doesn't seem to mind

But what if she does mind? You aren't even addressing this. It's great that you both are okay with just doing what the other asks, but this can cause underlying resentment, especially if it's taken too far. I'm sure you both limit yourselves to the amount of favors you ask of one another. And wouldn't it bother you if your wife was doing for you out of obligation? Your marriage might work, but it might work a lot better if there is no obligation to do what you expect? So many people are afraid to say anything for fear of retribution, because the person asking thinks he is in the right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

, and she does the same, and doesn't expect me to just do things without being asked. In a healthy relationship there is free and open comunication without unnecessary hostility or acusation.

It's not about hostility or accusation. It is about giving up something you don't want to give up. If I am working on a paper and my spouse would say to me, can you help me here, I would do it grudgingly. I think most people would. That is what this guideline prevents. If you are happy, I'm happy for you, but most people in a relationship, at one time or another, have a problem with this type of scenario. The unfortunate part about all this is that the person who loses is the person who is not doing anything wrong by refusing.

Spacemonkey · #**27753** 06-22-2013, 12:39 AM

Peacegirl, you said the light from the newly ignited Sun would be at the retina at 12:02 and was located at the Sun at 12:00. Was this correct or incorrect?

peacegirl · #**27754** 06-22-2013, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, to sum up: When you said that if someone invented a functioning bionic eye, that would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision, you were lying. Good to have that cleared up.

Carry on.

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.

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? :eek:

Just go our merry way, and teach what you have learned. No one is worse for the wear.

I am a scientist and an educator. I have an obligation and a duty to confront and expose ignorance and pseudoscience. And yes, ignorance and pseudoscience can be very damaging -- look at all the damage being done by vaccine deniers, global warming "skeptics," creationists, etc., etc.

The real question is: Why do you persist, given that Lessans' claims regarding sight have been disproved by your own criteria?

It's dishonest at best to persist in making demonstrably-false claims.

Because I don't believe it's been proven that the brain interprets images from light, and that without the object, the light still brings the pattern of a physical event long after the event is gone. I am persisting and will continue to do so. I am not doing anything that is damaging to anyone. I could say the same thing about you because you are making every effort to prevent this discovery from coming to light by stating that this is a false claim.

You are the one who claimed that a functioning bionic eye would disprove Lessans' claims. Such devices exist.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

I will admit that you are personally harmless, since no sane person could accept your claims. But your attitude -- that what you want to be true is far more important than mere facts, evidence, or logic -- is very, very dangerous indeed.

How dangerous Lone? What can happen other than people recognizing their intrinsic worth and becoming happier and well adjusted as a result? Please elaborate on this danger that you believe is lurking that will hurt people if they question the validity of afferent vision. :eek:

Spacemonkey · #**27755** 06-22-2013, 12:56 AM

What does it say about the plausibility of efferent vision that you're so completely incapable and/or unwilling to answer simple questions about it?

peacegirl · #**27756** 06-22-2013, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you said the light from the newly ignited Sun would be at the retina at 12:02 and was located at the Sun at 12:00. Was this correct or incorrect?

Please stop Spacemonkey, I need a break from this train of questioning that doesn't even enter into it. You are being obsessive/compulsive. Let it go for now, okay? Maybe at a later date I will revisit it, but not now. There is no way to win in this thread. It may be my fault, but it still doesn't exclude the plausibility of this model.

Spacemonkey · #**27757** 06-22-2013, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop Spacemonkey...

No. I've been patiently asking you to address the same questions for MONTHS, and you owe me some answers here. Your pattern so far has been:-

1. Weasel, weasel, weasel...
2. Offer an answer and then immediately realize that it doesn't work.
3. Weasel, weasel, weasel...

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but it still doesn't exclude the plausibility of this model.

Yes, it does. That is exactly what it does. Your inability to account for where these photons at the retina came from or how they got there COMPLETELY EXCLUDES any plausibility for your non-model.

thedoc · #**27758** 06-22-2013, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a woman knows that her husband is not going to ask her to fulfill unnecessary favors (favors that he can do for himself), it creates a desire in the woman (this is human nature) to want to help him by asking if there is anything she can do for him, even if she has to go out of her way on some occasions. In the new world you would hear this, "Honey, is there anything you would like me to bring to you before I come upstairs?" Or, "Honey, are you thirsty, I don't mind bringing you that lemonade you enjoy?" That is much nicer than having him yell down to you to bring something to him when you're in the middle of doing something, which is a euphemistic way of telling you that you better had, or else get blamed for not fulfilling your duty as a wife. This constant imposition has caused serious riffs in relationships. Why wouldn't a husband or wife want to do what they are capable of doing for themselves, when they know that the less they impose on the other, the less friction there will be, which would be the fault of the one making the demand?

Bullshit, this is not human nature, while some couples may opperate this way it does not apply to everyones preferences. I know of couples where the wife waits on the husband hand and foot, and both are content and happy with the arrangment, but in many of these cases the husband works and the wife stays at home.

Who is arguing with this thedoc? If they are both happy, that's great. This only applies when someone isn't happy with the arrangement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

In other cases the husband is content to do for himself and get his own things like drinks and serving himself meals. There is no one arrangment that suits all people and there are as many combinations as there are couples.

That is true, but there is one thing that cannot be ignored, and that is the desire of both individuals. If they are not happy to do something, it becomes a sacrifice, and if this is done long enough, frequently enough, and with the expectation that someone should always give in, there's a potential problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Human nature is variable and cannot be nailed down to one scenario that will fit all situations.

No it can't, but there are certain situations that will draw out a person's loving side in contrast to their resentful side.

You're waffleing, in your post above you implyed that every relationship would opperate according to a fixed set of rules and I pointed out that every relationship is different and "One size does not fit all" and now you are agreeing with me. So which is it? does 'human nature' mean that all relationships are the same, or is each situation unique?

thedoc · #**27759** 06-22-2013, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

It took me a few years to break my wife of asking if she could get things for me, it still isn't perfect but it's better.

Why did you do that? Because you weren't happy. If one of the partners isn't happy there is a conflict and somebody has to give in one way or another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

When I want something that she can do for me, I ask, and she doesn't seem to mind

But what if she does mind? You aren't even addressing this. It's great that you both are okay with just doing what the other asks, but this can cause underlying resentment, especially if it's taken too far. I'm sure you both limit yourselves to the amount of favors you ask of one another. And wouldn't it bother you if your wife was doing for you out of obligation? Your marriage might work, but it might work a lot better if there is no obligation to do what you expect? So many people are afraid to say anything for fear of retribution, because the person asking thinks he is in the right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

, and she does the same, and doesn't expect me to just do things without being asked. In a healthy relationship there is free and open comunication without unnecessary hostility or acusation.

It's not about hostility or accusation. It is about giving up something you don't want to give up. If I am working on a paper and my spouse would say to me, can you help me here, I would do it grudgingly. I think most people would. That is what this guideline prevents. If you are happy, I'm happy for you, but most people in a relationship, at one time or another, have a problem with this type of scenario. The unfortunate part about all this is that the person who loses is the person who is not doing anything wrong by refusing.

Now you are doing what you accuse others of doing to your fathers book, twisting and misintrepreting what was posted to mean something else. Read what was written, not what you want to have been written.

The Lone Ranger · #**27760** 06-22-2013, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, to sum up: When you said that if someone invented a functioning bionic eye, that would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision, you were lying. Good to have that cleared up.

Carry on.

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.

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? :eek:

Just go our merry way, and teach what you have learned. No one is worse for the wear.

I am a scientist and an educator. I have an obligation and a duty to confront and expose ignorance and pseudoscience. And yes, ignorance and pseudoscience can be very damaging -- look at all the damage being done by vaccine deniers, global warming "skeptics," creationists, etc., etc.

The real question is: Why do you persist, given that Lessans' claims regarding sight have been disproved by your own criteria?

It's dishonest at best to persist in making demonstrably-false claims.

Because I don't believe it's been proven that the brain interprets images from light, and that without the object, the light still brings the pattern of a physical event long after the event is gone. I am persisting and will continue to do so. I am not doing anything that is damaging to anyone. I could say the same thing about you because you are making every effort to prevent this discovery from coming to light by stating that this is a false claim.

You are the one who claimed that a functioning bionic eye would disprove Lessans' claims. Such devices exist.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

I will admit that you are personally harmless, since no sane person could accept your claims. But your attitude -- that what you want to be true is far more important than mere facts, evidence, or logic -- is very, very dangerous indeed.

How dangerous Lone? What can happen other than people recognizing their intrinsic worth and becoming happier and well adjusted as a result? Please elaborate on this danger that you believe is lurking that will hurt people if they question the validity of afferent vision. :eek:

A habit of believing what you want to be true despite facts, evidence, and logic to the contrary is quite-possibly the most dangerous habit it's possible to have. Or have you never in your life picked up a history book? Is it actually necessary to point this out?

In any event, you might want to go back and re-read the post. This time, pay attention, instead of relying on your usual trick of simply scanning for key words, and thus completely missing the point.

thedoc · #**27761** 06-22-2013, 03:40 AM

An interesting signature, that applies to Peacegirl more that anyone else I know.

"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about." Wayne Dyer

LadyShea · #**27762** 06-22-2013, 05:21 AM

Quote:

If I am working on a paper and my spouse would say to me, can you help me here, I would do it grudgingly. I think most people would.

Why do you think that?

I would simply say "No, I am busy right now", and either he'll do it himself or wait until it is convenient for me to help him.

In my house this doesn't even happen, because we know when someone is busy, and ask for help later. "Hey, when you have a minute, would you mind helping with this?" No grudging or resentment...no rules or guidelines. Just simple courtesy.

Angakuk · #**27763** 06-22-2013, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I asked you about shinning a laser pointer at the wall, whether the resulting red spot was an object or light. You didn't answer

Light, but the laser is an object.

When we see something, do we see the object itself or do we see the light reflected off of or emitted by the object?

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?

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.

I agree. If the light source is so far away that the light is sufficiently dispersed so that not enough photons come into contact with the retina (or some other type of light sensor) then we will not see the light source.

Since you agree that what we see is the light that is reflected or emitted by the object, and not the object itself, then I suppose that you must also agree that we can only see that light if it is in contact with our retinas. Is that correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object IS the matter that is interacting with the light. The light itself shows nothing at all.

In the case of the laser and the red spot on the wall, what is the object that we are seeing when we see the red spot on the wall?

peacegirl · #**27764** 06-22-2013, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop Spacemonkey...

No. I've been patiently asking you to address the same questions for MONTHS, and you owe me some answers here. Your pattern so far has been:-

1. Weasel, weasel, weasel...
2. Offer an answer and then immediately realize that it doesn't work.
3. Weasel, weasel, weasel...

I don't owe you anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but it still doesn't exclude the plausibility of this model.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it does. That is exactly what it does. Your inability to account for where these photons at the retina came from or how they got there COMPLETELY EXCLUDES any plausibility for your non-model.

So you won. You should be happy.

peacegirl · #**27765** 06-22-2013, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It's possible that she's trolling, but this is the longest troll I've ever seen, with nary a slip of character for years. It's also possible that trolling is what she's doing because she desires discussion about the book, regardless of how people discuss it.

There's definitely some form of mental dysfunction here. Devotion to a book that requires extreme mental gymnastics to keep believing in it probably isn't helping, if it's not part of the cause.

I don't think that her blind devotion to her dad and the book are a troll but I'm not convinced that this ridiculous thing where she flip-flops all over the place and contradicts herself is unconscious or just part of her confusion either. I think that she knows that the vision stuff in the book is incorrect after all of this time and consciously refuses to admit it because she has too much emotionally invested in his being right. I haven't taken a science class since high school (and it was taught by nuns who didn't go to college) and even I understood it the first time that it was explained. This isn't the rocket scientist part and I'm having a hard time believing that someone that can use a computer can't understand it unless they're not telling the truth.

You're completely misguided Christina. If you don't understand his reasoning (which you don't), you have no right to conclude that I'm doing this because I have too much emotional investment in it. Believe me, I've been with this knowledge much longer than 10 years, and I believe he is right. If I depended on people's opinions, this knowledge would have been thrown out long ago. That would be a tragedy. He knew what he was up against, and I'm not about to give up on this discovery just because it disturbs people and they call me names.

Spacemonkey · #**27766** 06-22-2013, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't owe you anything.

If you are going to insist that your account is plausible then you owe me answers to my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So you won. You should be happy.

How many times have you fake-conceded now?

Spacemonkey · #**27767** 06-22-2013, 01:20 PM

Peacegirl, you said the light from the newly ignited Sun would be at the retina at 12:02 and was located at the Sun at 12:00. Was this correct or incorrect?

Do you stand by your previous answers or not?

peacegirl · #**27768** 06-22-2013, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, to sum up: When you said that if someone invented a functioning bionic eye, that would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision, you were lying. Good to have that cleared up.

Carry on.

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.

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? :eek:

Just go our merry way, and teach what you have learned. No one is worse for the wear.

I am a scientist and an educator. I have an obligation and a duty to confront and expose ignorance and pseudoscience. And yes, ignorance and pseudoscience can be very damaging -- look at all the damage being done by vaccine deniers, global warming "skeptics," creationists, etc., etc.

The real question is: Why do you persist, given that Lessans' claims regarding sight have been disproved by your own criteria?

It's dishonest at best to persist in making demonstrably-false claims.

Because I don't believe it's been proven that the brain interprets images from light, and that without the object, the light still brings the pattern of a physical event long after the event is gone. I am persisting and will continue to do so. I am not doing anything that is damaging to anyone. I could say the same thing about you because you are making every effort to prevent this discovery from coming to light by stating that this is a false claim.

You are the one who claimed that a functioning bionic eye would disprove Lessans' claims. Such devices exist.

Maybe I wasn't being clear. There has to be a way to determine whether the impulses being sent by the optic nerve actually are being interpreted by the brain. I don't know whether it's possible to separate the variables such that we would know what those impulses mean, and what is going on with the brain. It's not a slam dunk by any means. If I said something that now I'm retracting, I'm sorry. I wasn't clear myself and I'm trying to work it through. As long as there is a functioning retina, or a replacement retina, we won't be able to tell whether the non-absorbed photons are being transduced into an interpretable image, or whether the brain is looking at the object directly through the retina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

I'm sorry you think that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I will admit that you are personally harmless, since no sane person could accept your claims. But your attitude -- that what you want to be true is far more important than mere facts, evidence, or logic -- is very, very dangerous indeed.

First of all, the verdict is still not in. I will not give up on this claim just because scientists believe they have proven that images are interpreted in the brain due to light. I think it's dangerous of you to treat this claim as impossible because you are perpetuating the idea that science is infallible. I am not telling you to change your worldview. I am only asking you to keep an open mind, which you are not doing if you have to call me names.

peacegirl · #**27769** 06-22-2013, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you said the light from the newly ignited Sun would be at the retina at 12:02 and was located at the Sun at 12:00. Was this correct or incorrect?

Do you stand by your previous answers or not?

Spacemonkey, stop it already. I know I haven't done justice in showing how this model is plausible, but that doesn't negate the fact that his claim is perfectly plausible because it doesn't violate the laws of physics. I'd like to ask you a question. If we actually see in real time, why are people so threatened by this? Does this knowledge remove the mystery of the universe? Does this change technology in any way? Does this stop GPS systems from working? I think it's that delayed vision has been an established fact for so long that for someone to debate it is seen as blasphemy, and it would also be an embarrassment. But there's nothing to be embarrassed about. It was an easy mistake to make, even for a seasoned scientist.

thedoc · #**27770** 06-22-2013, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, stop it already. I know I haven't done justice in showing how this model is plausible, but that doesn't negate the fact that his claim is perfectly plausible because it doesn't violate the laws of physics. I'd like to ask you a question. If we actually see in real time, why are people so threatened by this? Does this knowledge remove the mystery of the universe? Does this change technology in any way? Does this stop GPS systems from working? I think it's that delayed vision has been an established fact for so long that for someone to debate it is seen as blasphemy, and it would also be an embarrassment. But there's nothing to be embarrassed about. It was an easy mistake to make, even for a seasoned scientist.

You really have no understanding of science, at all.

Spacemonkey · #**27771** 06-22-2013, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...or whether the brain is looking at the object directly through the retina.

I'd like to take a moment to remind you of how mind-numbingly retarded this suggestion is. Brains can't look. They don't have eyes. Only people - i.e. systems including a brain and eyes - can look. People can look using their eyes, and they can look through a window. But brains cannot look out through the eyes like a person looking out through two little windows. And if all this phrase of yours is supposed to mean is that the brain and eyes work together to see things, then the afferent account completely agrees. Such looking isn't an alternative to afferent vision, but is instead exactly what the afferent account explains.

Spacemonkey · #**27772** 06-22-2013, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, stop it already.

No. I want to know whether or not you still maintain your previous answers to be correct. It's a simple Yes or No question. Why won't you answer?

You said the light from the newly ignited Sun would be at the retina at 12:02 and was located at the Sun at 12:00. Was this correct or incorrect?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I haven't done justice in showing how this model is plausible, but that doesn't negate the fact that his claim is perfectly plausible...

So you can't show his claim to be plausible, but you're going to go ahead and assert it to be a fact that it is plausible anyway?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to ask you a question...

No. Sorry, but you've forfeited your right to ask questions of me. If you want me to answer anything from you, you'll first have to stop weaseling and answer the above question I've asked of you.

LadyShea · #**27773** 06-22-2013, 02:18 PM

Quote:

As long as there is a functioning retina, or a replacement retina, we won't be able to tell whether the non-absorbed photons are being transduced into an interpretable image, or whether the brain is looking at the object directly through the retina.

This goes back to the anatomy of the eye. You never explained how the brain could look out when there are opaque structures between the brain and the eyes lenses. You've never explained how the brain could look out at all. As Spacemoneky explained, looking is something a person does with their eyes. Does the brain have it's own little eyes looking out through our regular eyes?

Why is the eye full of afferent neurons? How does the brain do something efferent with afferent neurons? What is the mechanism by which the brain looks out?

Without a light sensor such as the retina or the replacement retina, how exactly do you propose light be transduced? Where would the signals come from? Why would you expect photons to be transduced if those photons aren't detected in the first place because you require that the light detector be removed? The retina or replacement retina is a requirement for the standard model of sight, it can't be eliminated.

That's like asking us to create a photograph without photosensitive paper, or film, or a digital light detector like a CCD. If an essential part of the system is eliminated that system can't function.

ChristinaM · #**27774** 06-22-2013, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Peacegirl, I realize that I'm taking this out of context because you were talking about a husband at the time but in principle do you have any problem with the following statement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

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

Thanks for that long answer last time but I was really looking for a simple one-word answer. Are both of those statements above equally valid? Please just answer with one word - "yes" or "no".

Bump

Peacegirl, this one should be fast because I only want a one-word answer - yes or no? This is kind of important to me in terms of figuring out how this all would work.

LadyShea · #**27775** 06-22-2013, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I haven't done justice in showing how this model is plausible

You've in fact shown it to be impossible.

Quote:

but that doesn't negate the fact that his claim is perfectly plausible

It rather does. You have "explained" away all plausibility by asserting impossible things...like light being located on Earth that is not located on Earth.

Quote:

because it doesn't violate the laws of physics.

Yes, it does. If your assertions are true, then the laws of physics do not hold at all. As has been shown to you. Light can't be at the retina and not at the retina at the same time.

Quote:

I'd like to ask you a question. If we actually see in real time, why are people so threatened by this?

Nobody is threatened, because it is not true.

Quote:

Does this change technology in any way? Does this stop GPS systems from working?

If we saw in real time, then the technology would never have come about in the first place. It wouldn't exist at all. There would be no GPS, as I demonstrated almost two years ag and you completely evaded

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. If efferent vision is true, as Lessans described, instantaneous transfer of information is possible via vision

Information about the object being seen is attained during the process of seeing, yes or no?

If no, then what is seeing if not perceiving, detecting, attaining, or otherwise gaining information about something that is not inside your brain?

If yes, then information has traveled from point A (whatever is being seen) to point B (your brain).

2. The Theory of Relativity (as does Causality) states instantaneous information transfer is not possible by any means

3. Several technologies only work if the Theory of Relativity is accurate

4. These technologies do in fact work

Therefore efferent vision contradicts the Theory of Relativity and would "negate proven technology" if it were true