A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Except nothing will. Bionic eyes; astrophysical observations; the facts that Lessans contradicts Einstein's remarkably confirmed theories; and even more impressively confirmed theories based on relativity; basic physiology; basic neuroscience - you don't understand how any of that can be squared with Lessans. You have a prior - that Lessans is right - despite him providing no evidence for his so called 'observations'; despite him contradicting well known facts with every other sentence; despite him being ignorant of swathes of science.

Whoaaaa, slow down. My prior is not that Lessans is right, it is his overwhelming evidence that the eyes don't work in the same way as the other senses. His reasoning is sound, if not more so, than the evidence that you claim is absolutely foolproof in support of afferent vision.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And that prior is so strong that I don't think there is any evidence that will convince you otherwise. Even when faced with ironclad evidence, of experiments repeated thousands of times over hundreds of years, you just shrug and say 'well, I am sure Lessans is right, so there must be some explanation I don't know that explains this'.

How about you? You have your own prior which is why you are ignoring any of Lessans' explanations. You already have pegged him as a nut. Most of science's observations are correct, and it is very easy to make this mistake because optics works the same way. The only difference is whether that light is bringing the image to the eye, or if that light is allowing us to see the object in real time. And look what it's caused. Again, I ask why is this claim so threatening? It does not contradict all of the theories you mentioned, and if it does contradict some, you don't reject the competing theory unless and until further testing is done, that is, if you don't want to be just as deceitful as those you have accused.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You are trapped in this belief. If you are wrong - and like it or not, you know that this is a possibility, however small - you will never find out with this mindset.

What about you? I can say the same thing. You will be be trapped in your belief. If you are wrong -- and like it or not, you know that this is a possibility, however small -- you will never find out with this mindset.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ceptimus, if a dog hasn't seen his master in a long time, and suddenly gets a whiff of his odor, I believe there will be recognition. If you don't want to use a sock, use the real person. .

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't use the real person, because there would be visual cues. It must be only something with the master's smell, and the dog must wag his tail, whimper, jump up and down, or otherwise "show recognition" according to your criteria.

Maybe you could put a sheet over the person, or maybe a line up with sheets over many people. See if the dog goes to the right person. It's more difficult to do this with sight because you cannot eliminate smell so easily.

Dogs recognize smell; they do not recognize photons

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's what you are being asked to demonstrate, that a dog reacts with what you consider signs of recognition to the master's scent without the person present at all.

We're trying to separate the senses so that it's not contaminated. There has to be a way that would prove that dogs can recognize their master through smell but not through sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Anyway - we still haven't cleared up how the eyes can work as cameras as well as movie projectors if there is no afferent sight?

If the image is not in the light, the film, being similar to the retina, would be taking a snapshot of the real object even though the lens is focusing the light. That means the picture would be the same exact photograph as what the eye sees. As far as movie projectors, if the eyes are not a sense organ, we would be seeing the object in real time, and whatever experience has come to be associated with that object, whether true or false, would be projected onto the object. You don't have to have afferent vision before efferent. That doesn't even make sense Visectus. Good try.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Hilarious response! Come on peacegirl, answer Ang.

"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?"

I did answer him. Traveling light is not what is under discussion. It obviously takes time for light to travel from A to B. But when we look at a distant object, we are not waiting for light to arrive in order to see said object. We see said object because it's there to be seen due to meeting the requirements of efferent vision. In this account there is no travel time. The image that is on film is the same exact image that we see in real time. That is because the image is not reflected in the light. The light is revealing the object and it's already at the film or retina. I wonder how many more times am I going to have to repeat this!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That doesn't even make sense.

That could be said about the book and everything you have posted, and that is one of the reasons why people are so upset with you.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whoaaaa, slow down. My prior is not that Lessans is right, it is his overwhelming evidence that the eyes don't work in the same way as the other senses. His reasoning is sound, if not more so, than the evidence that you claim is absolutely foolproof in support of afferent vision.

Except there is no evidence in support of Lessans - at least, nothing anyone else would call evidence. I even asked you, many pages ago, if there was any reason we should believe Lessans. You said there wasn't. So you know this full well, too.

...you don't reject the competing theory unless and until further testing is done, that is, if you don't want to be just as deceitful as those you have accused.

Blah blah, more weasling. You reject that the Earth is flat; so we reject your daft claims. The Earth being flat has more support than your claims do, so unless you're willing to accept that needs 'more testing', you can shut up about this point too.

What about you? I can say the same thing. You will be be trapped in your belief. If you are wrong -- and like it or not, you know that this is a possibility, however small -- you will never find out with this mindset.

Wrong - because I can and do go test my beliefs about vision. Notice that, unlike you, I'm not scrabbling around in the dirt trying to find anything, no matter how weak, to support my position. There aren't things I don't understand about my own theory. Instead, my account makes sense; I have journals full of evidence that is consistent. All the observations points to the same conclusion. You have nothing your Dad's claims, many of which are obviously completely wrong, and vast amounts of contradicting evidence that you don't know how to explain.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did answer him. Traveling light is not what is under discussion. It obviously takes time for light to travel from A to B. But when we look at a distant object, we are not waiting for light to arrive in order to see said object. We see said object because it's there to be seen due to meeting the requirements of efferent vision. In this account there is no travel time. The image that is on film is the same exact image that we see in real time. That is because the image is not reflected in the light. The light is revealing the object and it's already at the film or retina. I wonder how many more times am I going to have to repeat this!

Okay, so forget traveling light. 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?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't understand that there is no "where it came from" because the image is not reflected in the light. I am really tired of discussing this, and I need a break.

He's asking where the light came from. The light you claim is located at the retina when we see. You just did it again

The light is revealing the object and it's already at the film or retina. I wonder how many more times am I going to have to repeat this!

What you keep repeating is impossible, it is an unsupported assertion. Repetition won't make it not magic. You could explain it, instead.

"Images" are not part of the question. You are weaseling away from answering the question and explaining your very own claim, and weaseling by claiming fatigue when you are here voluntarily. If you need a break, take one. Who's stopping you?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe you could put a sheet over the person, or maybe a line up with sheets over many people. See if the dog goes to the right person. It's more difficult to do this with sight because you cannot eliminate smell so easily.

We're trying to separate the senses so that it's not contaminated. There has to be a way that would prove that dogs can recognize their master through smell but not through sight.

Why put a sheet over the person? Present the dog with a shirt or sock or bandana that his master has worn so there is nothing but smell to recognize. This is exactly analogous to what you are asking when you want a dog to recognize a photograph.

Dogs can track a single smell for miles in the field, amongst the millions of other smells, they should certainly be able to distinguish which t-shirt their beloved master has worn and "show recognition".

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't understand that there is no "where it came from"...

We're talking about the light at the retina. What do you mean there is no "where it came from"? I thought you said it came from the Sun? Was that wrong? Are you now saying this light didn't come from anywhere, and instead just came into existence at the retina? Is that what you are saying? Or are you just making up whatever crap you have to in order to evade the problem, without knowing what you are saying?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...because the image is not reflected in the light.

Who said anything about images being reflected in the light? Was that part of the problem I laid out for you? Or was the problem purely about where the light at the retina came from and how it got there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am really tired of discussing this, and I need a break.

It must be very tiring work, constantly not answering questions. This is just another weaseling tactic. Whenever faced with the impossibility of efferent vision and your own inability to actually address the problems with it, you just start begging for a break. You've had breaks. Many of them. Yet you never come back willing to address the problem I've been asking you about. You weasel when refreshed just as much as when you are tired.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is revealing the object and it's already at the film or retina. I wonder how many more times am I going to have to repeat this!

Where did that light come from and how did it get there? I wonder how many more times I am going to have to ask this!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whoaaaa, slow down. My prior is not that Lessans is right, it is his overwhelming evidence that the eyes don't work in the same way as the other senses.

'Overwhelming' as in none at all? Or is there evidence you've been hiding from your audience for the last ten years?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, I ask why is this claim so threatening?

Again, we answer that it is not.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I wonder how many more times I am going to have to ask this!

I wonder the same thing.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the image is not in the light, the film, being similar to the retina, would be taking a snapshot of the real object even though the lens is focusing the light. That means the picture would be the same exact photograph as what the eye sees. As far as movie projectors, if the eyes are not a sense organ, we would be seeing the object in real time, and whatever experience has come to be associated with that object, whether true or false, would be projected onto the object. You don't have to have afferent vision before efferent. That doesn't even make sense Visectus. Good try.

Ermm... we are not talking about film at all. The book says that the eyes work as cameras as well as movie projectors. To work as a camera is inherently afferent.

Still, there is some true in this reply:

As far as movie projectors, if the eyes are not a sense organ, we would be seeing the object in real time, and whatever experience has come to be associated with that object, whether true or false, would be projected onto the object.

First off: we still do not know how the brain knows what to project without afferent vision happening first.

And then to make it even more awesome: now apparently the brain gets it wrong a lot and we project whatever "experience has become associated with that object"...

So you agree we see the object first, and then project something on to it, rightly or wrongly?

And isn't it odd that we do this, and STILL get the same result from a camera, which does not project anything? To the extent that people with bionic eyes can recongize photographs?

I think I have earned that applause look what it yielded in wonderful fresh self-contradicting waffle!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What if it turns out that you're the fundie Vivisectus? What then? You are so positive he is wrong, and you are doing everything you can to make it appear that way, but it's all a facade. As far as sight goes, the verdict is still out no matter how much you believe this is a proven fact. As far as the right-of-way system, there is no doubt that it prevents arguments. If I would say to my boyfriend "lets go to the movies" and he says, no honey, you go yourself because I'm tired, and I keep badgering him to go with me, not considering his feelings (which he has a right to), who is in the wrong here? I'm sure you will say that he is (just to be obstinate) because he is sacrificing my need for his time, but he is not telling me not to go. I am telling him to do something that he doesn't want to do. He has the right-of-way even though I would love him to come with me. The right-of-way system is based on a mathematical principle and it comes directly from the knowledge that man's will is not free. If you can't even follow that principle, it's no wonder you can't follow this one.

What if it turns out that you're the fundie Vivisectus? What then? You are so positive he is wrong, and you are doing everything you can to make it appear that way, but it's all a facade.

What then? Well, if any decent evidence would turn up, I would change my mind. Simple as that.

As far as sight goes, the verdict is still out no matter how much you believe this is a proven fact.

At the moment, there is a vast preponderance of evidence that points to your ideas being complete twaddle. It is so strong and comes from so many different areas that it is hard to imagine the circumstances in which all those things could be observed and your idea be correct at the same time. It would have to involve some weird galaxy-wide conspiracy by vastly powerful supernatural beings or something. It literally boggles the mind to even try to reconcile your ideas with what we know to be true. I don't think it can be done.

As far as the right-of-way system, there is no doubt that it prevents arguments.

Please to provide some support for that claim. As we have alsready seen, both in small-scale examples as in extreme ones, it leads to absurdities unless you qualify your rule so heavily as to make it completely useless.

I would say to my boyfriend "lets go to the movies" and he says, no honey, you go yourself because I'm tired, and I keep badgering him to go with me, not considering his feelings (which he has a right to), who is in the wrong here? I'm sure you will say that he is (just to be obstinate) because he is sacrificing my need for his time, but he is not telling me not to go. I am telling him to do something that he doesn't want to do. He has the right-of-way even though I would love him to come with me. The right-of-way system is based on a mathematical principle and it comes directly from the knowledge that man's will is not free. If you can't even follow that principle, it's no wonder you can't follow this one

Oooo there's a boyfriend in the picture now? Good on you! DO NOT SHOW HIM THE BOOK.

However, your rule if quite obviously nonsense. Please to explain the math behind this principle: I am all agog to follow your calculations.

As for your example: it depends on the circumstances who is wrong. If he has stood you up for 6 movie visits in a row and you have pointed out this is a big thing for you, then his refusal to go because he is a bit tired is wrong - and obviously so. If this is a random thing with no real history to it, then he is fully in the right.

Your right-of-way rule is once again pretty useless for determining what is OK and what is not, and it is trivially easy to come up with examples where it gets it rather hillariously wrong.

So: please explain to me if it is wrong for your boyfriend to refuse to go to the movies when you have waited for months to go and see it, you bought tickets months in advance, you have reminded him weekly of the upcoming event which you made clear was very important to you and which he agreed to go to, and for which you have hired a stretch limo complete with strawberries and champagne... because he is a bit tired.

According to your rule, it is wrong of you to even feel let down.

When youa re done that, please show me how mathematics is applicable to ethics in any way. It should make for an interesting read.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whoaaaa, slow down. My prior is not that Lessans is right, it is his overwhelming evidence that the eyes don't work in the same way as the other senses. His reasoning is sound, if not more so, than the evidence that you claim is absolutely foolproof in support of afferent vision.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Except there is no evidence in support of Lessans - at least, nothing anyone else would call evidence. I even asked you, many pages ago, if there was any reason we should believe Lessans. You said there wasn't. So you know this full well, too.

I never said that, or maybe you misunderstood.

...you don't reject the competing theory unless and until further testing is done, that is, if you don't want to be just as deceitful as those you have accused.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Blah blah, more weasling. You reject that the Earth is flat; so we reject your daft claims. The Earth being flat has more support than your claims do, so unless you're willing to accept that needs 'more testing', you can shut up about this point too.

I will not shut up. If you're that frustrated, leave.

What about you? I can say the same thing. You will be be trapped in your belief. If you are wrong -- and like it or not, you know that this is a possibility, however small -- you will never find out with this mindset.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Wrong - because I can and do go test my beliefs about vision. Notice that, unlike you, I'm not scrabbling around in the dirt trying to find anything, no matter how weak, to support my position.

I'm not scrambling in the dirt to support my position.

Originally Posted by Dragar

There aren't things I don't understand about my own theory. Instead, my account makes sense; I have journals full of evidence that is consistent. All the observations points to the same conclusion. You have nothing your Dad's claims, many of which are obviously completely wrong

And which ones are wrong? The ones that he is disputing?

Originally Posted by Dragar

, and vast amounts of contradicting evidence that you don't know how to explain.

No, and like I said, I don't have to explain the contradicting evidence. Something may seem very much foolproof but isn't when analyzed from a different angle. But you're entitled to your beliefs, so I'm not going to argue with you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Okay, so forget traveling light. 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?

We are seeing the light coming from the laser. The object is the laser that is emitting the light.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Something may seem very much foolproof but isn't when analyzed from a different angle.
.

Well there you have it, when you look at things from a different perspective, 'Lessans is right and everyone else is wrong', then you can see how it works. That explains everything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe you could put a sheet over the person, or maybe a line up with sheets over many people. See if the dog goes to the right person. It's more difficult to do this with sight because you cannot eliminate smell so easily.

We're trying to separate the senses so that it's not contaminated. There has to be a way that would prove that dogs can recognize their master through smell but not through sight.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why put a sheet over the person? Present the dog with a shirt or sock or bandana that his master has worn so there is nothing but smell to recognize. This is exactly analogous to what you are asking when you want a dog to recognize a photograph.

That could be done, but I think a better experiment is for there to be a line up and to see if the dog will go toward his master.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dogs can track a single smell for miles in the field, amongst the millions of other smells, they should certainly be able to distinguish which t-shirt their beloved master has worn and "show recognition".

That's true. I'm sure they've done experiments to test this very thing.

NOVA | Dogs' Dazzling Sense of Smell

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why don't you just answer? All I'm asking is if you still agree with your own previous claims.

Of course I agree that light is at the retina. If you're looking at the object the light is already there. There is no reflected light in this account, therefore there is no traveling photon. I know this is what you and Spacemonkey don't understand, but this is the foundation of his claim. There is no image that is reflected in the light. It is there because we see it. Unless you can grasp why this is plausible, I have nothing more to say.

Because you cannot use this reasoning, that's why.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why not?

Am I wrong to think that if light is to be located somewhere then you need to be able to explain where it came from?

I told you that light travels. Those photons travel and are wherever they are on their journey from point A to point B, but when you're talking about non-absorbed photons (images or patterns), these patterns do not bounce and travel. They are there to be seen as long as the object is large enough and bright enough. The non-absorbed photons will be instantly at the film/retina because the object is within our field of view, but we would never get an image of Columbus discovering America because the light is not traveling through space/time with that pattern.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Am I wrong to think that if light came from some location then you need to be able to explain when it was located there?

Yes, but that is not what is going to give you an understanding of why the mirror image of the object is at the eye if the object is within our optical range. Remember, in this account distance is not what counts. It is the fact that the object is large enough to be seen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are these faulty assumptions, Peacegirl? Or are they perfectly reasonable questions that your account needs to address?

I've been trying to address it, but I don't think anything I say is going to matter because you keep talking about traveling photons when this account clearly states the the object does not reflect images (or patterns). So how are we going to resolve this? I understand that no one can see how an object that absorbs photons doesn't reflect the non-absorbed photons. That appears logical, but I don't believe it's correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot continue to talk to you about efferent vision when we're on parallel roads, and until you understand why we're on parallel roads, we will be on a road to nowhere.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We are on parallel roads because I am investigating the implications of your claims, while you are running away from them. I'm trying to find out where these photons at the retina came from and how they got there on your account, while you're doing your best to ignore and evade the problem.

They didn't get there, they are already there. There is no traversing of distance when the brain is looking outward, using the eyes as a window to the external world. If you see the object, the photons are instantly at the retina. Remember, you have to work this backwards in order to understand why seeing the object means the light is already there; it doesn't travel to get there. In other words, there is no traveling blue light before red light which would mean there is always going to be a delay depending on which light is in line to strike first; yet light energy is in constant motion.

You still don't understand that there is no "where it came from" because the image is not reflected in the light. I am really tired of discussing this, and I need a break.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He's asking where the light came from. The light you claim is located at the retina when we see. You just did it again

The light is revealing the object and it's already at the film or retina. I wonder how many more times am I going to have to repeat this!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you keep repeating is impossible, it is an unsupported assertion. Repetition won't make it not magic. You could explain it, instead.

That is because you don't understand why looking out at the external world changes the way light is used in terms of what it is that we see. It does not change the properties of light.

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

"Images" are not part of the question. You are weaseling away from answering the question and explaining your very own claim, and weaseling by claiming fatigue when you are here voluntarily. If you need a break, take one. Who's stopping you?

I am not weaseling away from explaining why light is at the retina. If you put everything that he has explained together, maybe you will eventually see why distance is not a factor, and why the image of the object (e.g. the non-absorbed photons) does not get reflected or travel through space/time in the efferent account, even though light travels. In the afferent account, yes, that is what would have to take place. If you think I'm being contradictory, and am trying to weasel my way out of a claim that is implausible in your eyes, I'm very sorry, but that's not what I'm doing. If that is your goal, to show me what a fundie I am, it's a lost cause because, although I have total faith in my father, I also see the soundness of his observations. No one has actually answered the question as to why this claim is causing so much anger. Isn't it because people are offended that he wasn't a scientist, and therefore who him gives the right to make this claim when the "facts" tell a different story? Or is it that people like the idea that we are seeing the past? It certainly doesn't change GPS systems, and it wouldn't cause the world to burn up, as people have speculated. What if this knowledge changes our relationship to the external world in a positive way? Are you going to just dismiss this possibility because you are so sure you're right? Or are you going to give him a chance?

Whatever you do is your prerogative. At this point though I'm tired of discussing the eyes because it's exhausting to repeat the same thing over and over and get nowhere. Instead of people considering that his claim may have merit, they are actually getting more and more incensed, and it's slowly building like a pressure cooker ready to explode. That's when the gang up starts. Therefore, it's a dead end discussion that will just give everyone more fodder to use for their daily fix of entertainment [at my expense].

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are seeing the light coming from the laser. The object is the laser that is emitting the light.

But the important point is that we are seeing the light and not the laser.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But the important point is that we are seeing the light and not the laser.

Oh boy, you got her now. She can't wiggle her way out of this one. No sir! This question will make her sane.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not weaseling away from explaining why light is at the retina. If you put everything that he has explained together, maybe you will eventually see why distance is not a factor, and why photons don't have to travel through space/time in order for them to be at the retina in the efferent account. In the afferent account, yes, that is what would have to take place.

I'm tired of discussing his claim of efferent sight because it's exhausting to repeat the same thing over and over and I don't have a better way of explaining it. Therefore, it's a dead end discussion that will just give everyone more fodder to use for entertainment.

If you put everything that Lessans has explained together, you will still have nothing and we will not see why distance is not a factor, because distance is a factor no matter how you try to hand-wave it away.

You don't have any way to explain it because efferent vision is simply not true, it is a dead issue with no validity.

[The Lone Ranger]

You've been given links to studies (some of them video links) demonstrating bionic eyes that disprove Lessans' claims regarding sight by your own criteria. Similarly, you've been given links to studies demonstrating that people can "see" due to direct stimulation of the visual cortex, completely bypassing the eyes and optic nerves.

Repeatedly.

You've consistently ignored those links. In some cases, you've flat-out stated that you have no intention of reading them.


If you have the slightest shred of intellectual integrity [I'd put the odds of that at somewhere between none and zero)], then you'll look up the links for your own damn self.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You've been given links to studies (some of them video links) demonstrating bionic eyes that disprove Lessans' claims regarding sight by your own criteria. Similarly, you've been given links to studies demonstrating that people can "see" due to direct stimulation of the visual cortex, completely bypassing the eyes and optic nerves.

Repeatedly.

You've consistently ignored those links. In some cases, you've flat-out stated that you have no intention of reading them.


If you have the slightest shred of intellectual integrity [I'd put the odds of that at somewhere between none and zero)], then you'll look up the links for your own damn self.

Usually people who suffer from severe schizophrenia do not have intellectual integrity. It is rather crazy, in and of itself, to expect them to have any. Especially when they have been flaunting their lack for over two years.