A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm calling you a liar and a hypocrite because you are. For example, you specified exactly what could disprove Lessans' claims regarding sight to your own satisfaction. When it was pointed out that these conditions had already been met, your initial response was to lie and deny that you'd made any such claim. When your own words were quoted back to you, you immediately shifted the goalposts (while carefully phrasing your revised criteria such that no evidence against Lessans would be considered adequate) and compounded the lie by pretending that's what you had really meant all along.

Such dishonesty is par for the course, where you're concerned.

You're a hypocrite because you hold Lessans to entirely different standards than anyone else. Where Lessans is concerned, his say-so is sufficient. But when carefully-conducted, double-blinded, peer-reviewed experiments conclude that Lessans was mistaken, you reject them without even bothering to familiarize yourself with the methodology and results. If reaility itself conflicts with Lessans, you insist that it's reality itself that must be wrong -- somehow.

And blind acceptance is exactly what you've been demanding from Day One. You dishonestly and hypocritically claim that you want people to test Lessans' claims, but every single time people do so, you reject the results because they conflict with Lessans' claims.

You do not want people to test Lessans' claims. You want people to blindly accept them, like you have. And you don't hesitate to resort to "Lying for Lessans" in pursuit of that goal.

You are most-definitely not "open to more testing." That's the biggest lie of all. The whole "more tests must be done -- meanwhile you should accept Lessans at his word, despite the fact that every single test has proved him wrong" plea is a particularly dishonest ploy, because you've outright said that you will reject any and all experimental results which contradict Lessans' claims.

I don't believe the verdict is in. Why should I prematurely give up when I don't think that the testing has been thorough enough? Why are you handwaving away the observation that dogs cannot identify their masters from a picture or a still video without any other cues? If you believe that Lessans is so wrong and I'm just a believer, why are you here? You seem really upset, and I don't want you to feel that way. You say you have a responsibility as a scientist to show where I'm wrong, but the truth always comes out in the end so your policing this thread isn't really necessary. It's not that I don't want you to be here; I actually like some of your responses. They are thought provoking and I can tell you really know your stuff. The only thing I'm upset about is that you're so upset. If this claim is wrong it will never be accepted. So what do you have to worry about? Also, it's not like it's a dangerous claim that can hurt anyone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's an apocryphal quote. Gandhi never said that. Once again your complete lack of vetting sources works against you

It is probably a variation and misattribution of this quote by Nicholas Klein:

I like that quote too. Thanks for correcting me. If I ever need an investigator, you're hired.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you handwaving away the fact that dogs cannot identify their masters from a picture or a still video without any other cues?

Since that's not true, I'm not "hand waving away" anything. Why are you ignoring the fact that dozens of independent experiments have conclusively demonstrated that there are many non-human species (including not just mammals, but birds, and apparently even some insects) that can recognize and distinguish between different faces? Why have you outright stated that you wouldn't read them when provided with links to these experiments?

All of which is beside the point anyway, since there's no particular reason we'd expect non-human animals to be able to recognize and distinguish between faces.

If you believe that Lessans is so wrong and I'm just a believer, why are you here?

I have a duty to confront lies and hypocrisy masquerading as science.

You seem really upset, and I don't want you to feel that way.

You're wrong on at least one of those claims, and likely both of them.


I have a hypothetical for you. Let us suppose that someone sets up a digital video camera in ... let's say, China. Heck, let's be more specific and say Beijing. The camera is turned on and pointed at an eye chart.

The impulses the camera generates are beamed to a satellite, which relays them to a receiver (not a video screen, a receiver) in ... let's say, California. Heck, let's say Los Angeles.

The impulses are relayed directly to a person's visual cortex.

Now, note that there are no video screens involved at all -- no "pixels."

So, if the person at the end of this chain -- literally on the other side of the world -- can identify the letters on the eye chart, would this experiment disprove Lessans' claims regarding how we see?


I advise you to think very carefully before answering, by the way ...

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe the verdict is in. Why should I prematurely give up when I don't think that the testing has been thorough enough?

The moons of Jupiter experiment has been repeated many thousands of times over hundreds of years, and it's disproved Lessans' claims every single time. This is just one of many experiments that disprove Lessans but it's probably the oldest one and can be carried out with only about a hundred dollars worth of equipment. We've repeatedly urged you to try this experiment for yourself, but although you're prepared to spend thousands of hours on internet forums arguing about this topic, you are not prepared to give maybe ten hours of your own time (spread across a whole year) towards the 'more empirical testing' that you say you want.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you handwaving away the observation that dogs cannot identify their masters from a picture or a still video without any other cues?

I don't think anyone in this thread has hand-waved away that observation, and many of us still don't understand why, even if it's true, it supports Lessans' theories about seeing. In my opinion you have yet to provide a coherent account of why you think this 'fact' (assuming for the sake of argument that it is a fact) supports the efferent model rather than the afferent one.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this claim is wrong it will never be accepted. So what do you have to worry about? Also, it's not like it's a dangerous claim that can hurt anyone.

The danger is that if enough nutcase Woo believers adopt these ideas as valid, and can influence enough politicians, these policies could be forced onto society. You don't need to look far to find really silly irrational laws that have been put into effect, and the claims of world peace and no crime are incentive enough for people to overlook reality and hope for some fantasy in it's place. Prohibition was a stupid idea that in itself was harmless but the result was a criminal class that has not gone away, it has just shifted to different activities. Anything that can be made into a law that dictates behavior, is dangerous and can be abused. The claim doesn't need to be correct for someone to try and impliment it into society.

[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?

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?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Distance becomes a factor when you state that the light at the retina came from the distant Sun, because you then have to explain how it got from the Sun to the retina. And if the light came from the Sun then it does have to get from the Sun to the retina. It doesn't necessarily have to travel, but if it doesn't then you need to provide an alternative. So far all you're doing is weaseling and evading by refusing to address the parts of your account that are impossible and make no sense.

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?

If correct, then you need to explain this 2min delay and light traveling at 4 times the speed of light.

If incorrect, then you need to explain when the light will be at the retina, where it came from, and how it got from there to the retina.

If you can't do this, then efferent vision is obviously not plausible. You can't say light will be somewhere if you can't explain where it came from or how it got there. Will you ever address this problem, or will you just continue to weasel?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you handwaving away the fact that dogs cannot identify their masters from a picture or a still video without any other cues?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Since that's not true, I'm not "hand waving away" anything. Why are you ignoring the fact that dozens of independent experiments have conclusively demonstrated that there are many non-human species (including not just mammals, but birds, and apparently even some insects) that can recognize and distinguish between different faces? Why have you outright stated that you wouldn't read them when provided with links to these experiments?

Reading the results is not seeing the proof. Why are there no videos showing that insects and birds can recognize people as separate individuals? As far as the one with the dog and the lever, I don't think the experiment was reliable. Let more experiments replicate the results.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

All of which is beside the point anyway, since there's no particular reason we'd expect non-human animals to be able to recognize and distinguish between faces.

That's true, but why? Why are the eyes so different in animals? A sense organ is supposed to send a message to the brain that can be interpreted as an image, so why can't dogs recognize the image of his master, like he can identify the smell of his master, or the sound of his master? That's a fair question which leads to Lessans' explanation.

If you believe that Lessans is so wrong and I'm just a believer, why are you here?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I have a duty to confront lies and hypocrisy masquerading as science.

You don't know whether this is real science, that's the problem.

You seem really upset, and I don't want you to feel that way.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're wrong on at least one of those claims, and likely both of them.

Okay.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I have a hypothetical for you. Let us suppose that someone sets up a digital video camera in ... let's say, China. Heck, let's be more specific and say Beijing. The camera is turned on and pointed at an eye chart.

The impulses the camera generates are beamed to a satellite, which relays them to a receiver (not a video screen, a receiver) in ... let's say, California. Heck, let's say Los Angeles.

The impulses are relayed directly to a person's visual cortex.

Now, note that there are no video screens involved at all -- no "pixels."

So, if the person at the end of this chain -- literally on the other side of the world -- can identify the letters on the eye chart, would this experiment disprove Lessans' claims regarding how we see?

If the person wasn't seeing the eye chart, but was just getting impulses being sent from across the world, that would be pretty conclusive that the brain is decoding these impulses into a visual. Have they done experiments like this where the object (in this case the eye chart) is completely out of view and the only thing the brain interprets is the impulse coming in?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I advise you to think very carefully before answering, by the way ...

I'm trying, but please don't call me a liar if I still have questions.

[peacegirl]

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?

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?

I have answered this so many times, it's getting old. Time is not involved Spacemonkey. Photons would be at the retina if the object was bright enough. If it takes time for the object (the Sun) to get to the point of being bright enough, we wouldn't see it, therefore no photons would be at the retina. Maybe it would take 2 seconds; this doesn't change anything. His claim would still hold that light doesn't have to travel through space/time and reach Earth for us to see the object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The danger is that if enough nutcase Woo believers adopt these ideas as valid, and can influence enough politicians, these policies could be forced onto society. You don't need to look far to find really silly irrational laws that have been put into effect, and the claims of world peace and no crime are incentive enough for people to overlook reality and hope for some fantasy in it's place. Prohibition was a stupid idea that in itself was harmless but the result was a criminal class that has not gone away, it has just shifted to different activities. Anything that can be made into a law that dictates behavior, is dangerous and can be abused. The claim doesn't need to be correct for someone to try and impliment it into society.

That's true but there are no laws that people could act against. There will be no prohibitions that cause people to go underground. That's the whole point. Claims of world peace and no crime can do no harm. People watch science fiction all the time, and they don't get reality and fantasy confused. So think of this as science fiction. I could care less.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The moons of Jupiter experiment has been repeated many thousands of times over hundreds of years, and it's disproved Lessans' claims every single time. This is just one of many experiments that disprove Lessans but it's probably the oldest one and can be carried out with only about a hundred dollars worth of equipment. We've repeatedly urged you to try this experiment for yourself, but although you're prepared to spend thousands of hours on internet forums arguing about this topic, you are not prepared to give maybe ten hours of your own time (spread across a whole year) towards the 'more empirical testing' that you say you want.

I'm not questioning the results. I know what I would see. If this is absolute proof, then we have a problem. I just don't know if this is absolute proof.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you handwaving away the observation that dogs cannot identify their masters from a picture or a still video without any other cues?

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

I don't think anyone in this thread has hand-waved away that observation, and many of us still don't understand why, even if it's true, it supports Lessans' theories about seeing. In my opinion you have yet to provide a coherent account of why you think this 'fact' (assuming for the sake of argument that it is a fact) supports the efferent model rather than the afferent one.

Because the eyes are acting differently than the other senses. Any photons coming in and being interpreted by the brain should be easily identified just like the smell of his master's sock being carried into the nose and to the brain is easily identified (without any other cues), and just like the voice of his master coming into the ears and to the brain is easily identified (without any other cues).

[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?

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?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that there are holes in the book. There are holes in your reasoning. But after 2 years and not one bit of progress, it's not even worth it to me.

`

..and yet in stead of pointing out the holes, you feel the need to run away...

[Vivisectus]

If we actually see in real time, why are people so threatened by this?

If jews are actually not to blame for the majority of the world's ills, then why are people so threatened by anti-semitism?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are there no videos showing that insects and birds can recognize people as separate individuals?

Why won't you watch them when you're given the links?

As far as the one with the dog and the lever, I don't think the experiment was reliable. Let more experiments replicate the results.

More blatant misrepresentation and dishonesty on your part. Many such experiments have been performed, using different methodologies. And you've outright said that you won't read the write-ups.

Why are the eyes so different in animals?

They aren't. You're being dishonest again.

A sense organ is supposed to send a message to the brain that can be interpreted as an image, so why can't dogs recognize the image of his master, like he can identify the smell of his master, or the sound of his master? That's a fair question which leads to Lessans' explanation.

Good grief! Learn some elementary-school-level physiology! And why not actually read the results of the experiments that have been done?

You don't know whether this is real science, that's the problem.

That is a massive lie, and you know it.

Lessans didn't use scientific methodology, as you yourself repeatedly point out. Therefore, to call what he did "science" is dishonest by definition.

If the person wasn't seeing the eye chart, but was just getting impulses being sent from across the world, that would be pretty conclusive that the brain is decoding these impulses into a visual. Have they done experiments like this where the object (in this case the eye chart) is completely out of view and the only thing the brain interprets is the impulse coming in?

Yes we have! Have you not been paying attention at all?

I'm trying, but please don't call me a liar if I still have questions.

I call you a liar when you lie.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered this so many times, it's getting old.

Zero is not "so many times". I've been asking you for days simply to indicate whether or not you still stick by your previous answers, and you've ignored me every time, just as you have here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Time is not involved Spacemonkey. Photons would be at the retina if the object was bright enough. If it takes time for the object (the Sun) to get to the point of being bright enough, we wouldn't see it, therefore no photons would be at the retina. Maybe it would take 2 seconds; this doesn't change anything.

In Lessans' newly ignited Sun example, the Sun is big enough and bright enough to be see instantly at 12:00 when it is ignited. There is no warm up time. This is a complete red herring. I've shown you how you face the exact same problem both with and without this 2 second warm-up. In BOTH cases you are still unable to explain where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there.

Let's work through both possibilities once more:-

(1) No warm-up period at all. The Sun is ignited at 12:00 and is instantly big enough and bright enough to be seen. So it is seen at 12:00. So there must be photons at the retina at 12:00, right? So where did they come from? The Sun? Then when where they located at the Sun? You can't answer this question, can you? Because there is no possible answer that will make any kind of sense.

(2) This time there is a 2 second warm-up period. So the Sun is ignited at 12:00 but is only big enough and bright enough to be seen at 12:02. So now there is a 2 second delay between the Sun being ignited and our actually seeing it. So there will be photons at the retina at 12:02, right? Where did they come from? The Sun? Then when were they located at the Sun? At 12:00? Then how did they get from the Sun to the retina which is 90 million miles away in two minutes? You can't answer this question either, can you? Did they travel through the intervening distance, thereby traveling at 4 times the speed of light? Or did they not travel through the intervening distance, thereby having teleported instead?

Go ahead and try to answer the bold questions for each scenario. Can you see how you still face the same problem both with and without a warm-up time? Can you see how this warm-up time is NOT the problem you are facing? The real problem here is that warm-up or no warm-up, you can't explain where the photons at the retina came from or how they got there.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the eyes are acting differently than the other senses. Any photons coming in and being interpreted by the brain should be easily identified just like the smell of his master's sock being carried into the nose and to the brain is easily identified (without any other cues), and just like the voice of his master coming into the ears and to the brain is easily identified (without any other cues).

Can you show us some videos of dogs prancing around and tail wagging when they're given one of their master's socks to smell, or when they're played a recording of their master's voice? Both tests must be done without any other cues, of course.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true but there are no laws that people could act against. There will be no prohibitions that cause people to go underground. That's the whole point. Claims of world peace and no crime can do no harm. People watch science fiction all the time, and they don't get reality and fantasy confused. So think of this as science fiction. I could care less.

Just because Lessans didn't intend them to be laws or prohibitions does not mean that others will not try to impliment them as such, after 10 years have you not learned that people can misintrepret what he has written? Claims of world peace and no crime can do real harm if people run with them to extreme cases and pass laws that cause harm because of that misunderstanding. I have seen people who have confused reality and fantasy, that happens and when they try to influence others based on that preception of fantasy as reality, there can be real harm to society. Typhoid Mary refused to believe that she carried a deadly disease and infected many people in her ignorance, her fantasy was that she was in good health and could not carry such a disease.

Typhoid Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not questioning the results. I know what I would see. If this is absolute proof, then we have a problem. I just don't know if this is absolute proof.

You accept the results that contradict Lessans' theories. If you don't think the results are proof then you should offer some alternative explanation for them.

If you don't have any alternative explanation, it looks like you're saying, 'I accept that these results show that I'm wrong, so I'm just going to ignore them.'

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as the one with the dog and the lever, I don't think the experiment was reliable.

There was no experiment with a dog and a lever. Since you have proved conclusively you haven't read any of them, how on Earth are you any kind of judge of their reliability? You're completely ignorant....ON PURPOSE.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

so why can't dogs recognize the image of his master, like he can identify the smell of his master, or the sound of his master?

Fact not in evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So think of this as science fiction. I could care less.

Science fiction usually includes at least some minimal scientific elements. Lessans' book more properly belongs in the utopian fantasy genre.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

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?

Bump

[Vivisectus]

[peacegirl]

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?

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?

If you're so sure it's implausible, why are you hounding me? Just look at me as a fundie and shake your head in disbelief.