A revolution in thought

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is coming from someone who never asked one question. She's too busy looking for her lulz so it's not surprising that this is what she finds.

Yoo hoo! Remember me? IIDB? Got any questions I needed to ask not answered by you back in, oh, 2006. It is amusing watching you get ruder, cruder, and deliberately, willfully dumber over time. You know, there are pictures of you next to the encyclopedia entry on the "Sunk Cost Fallacy". There'll doubtless be another next to "Black Hole of Stupid" after you've finished collapsing in on yourself.

BTW, there's no need to go looking for lulz on one of your threads. They leap out at readers from every direction and mug them with clubs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

Yoo hoo! Remember me? IIDB? Got any questions I needed to ask not answered by you back in, oh, 2006. It is amusing watching you get ruder, cruder, and deliberately, willfully dumber over time. You know, there are pictures of you next to the encyclopedia entry on the "Sunk Cost Fallacy". There'll doubtless be another next to "Black Hole of Stupid" after you've finished collapsing in on yourself.

BTW, there's no need to go looking for lulz on one of your threads. They leap out at readers from every direction and mug them with clubs.

Cynthia, it's not surprising that this is how the thread looks. It's easy to make someone look dumber over time. I told everyone that I never anticipated these type questions. I have stumbled and I admit it, but this has nothing to do with the validity of his observations. You, on the other hand, have been crude from day one. You have never had a nice word, or even a valid question. Every single post of yours is demeaning. This definitely tells me something. You are here for one reason only and that's to laugh and to get a kick out of my stumbles. This will ruin it for you because you are focused on the wrong thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

No, I would be inclined to say that Lessans did not have evidence, he had "observations" and conjecture. What actual evidence did he have?

He didn't have the kind of evidence that you expect because his observations didn't start out with a hypothesis. He made certain observations after years of analysis. If you didn't read this chapter, then there is no way for you to know how he came to these findings. Eventually they will be tested and confirmed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Mentioned where?
It is included in every math program used by the Jet Propulsion Labs as I showed you several times when I linked to and quoted their websites. Hell do a Google search for "light-time correction NASA" and see for yourself. It's always included.

We lost a Mars orbiter due to the difference between metric and English measurements (centimeters to inches)...which was a much smaller difference than the thousands of kilometers that TLR demonstrated would be involved without accounting for planetary aberration. CNN - Metric mishap caused loss of NASA orbiter - September 30, 1999

Obviously, measurements have to be accurate. But I still say that I don't think the time/light delay calculation is as important as people are claiming, unlike a mismatch in actual units of measurement itself which can throw a precise landing off entirely.

That review panel's findings now are being studied by a second group -- a special review board headed up by John Casani, which will search for the processes that failed to find the metric to English mismatch. Casani retired from JPL two months ago from the position of chief engineer for the Lab.

CNN - Metric mishap caused loss of NASA orbiter - September 30, 1999

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's easy to make someone look dumber over time.

Especially when the person in question is shit-all stupid to begin with.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did he have access to a pdf like we did? You said at another forum he was supposed to "help" you. Help with what?

He may have read the .pdf for the short time it was online. He was going to help me moderate the questions being asked, but instead he went behind my back. He didn't like the claim regarding the senses, just like here. He did not read the book and understand it. There are no military references where the military takes care of people who don't want to participate. That's absolutely crazy. The only other thing that he may have been referring to is that prices cannot be raised during the transition. Therefore, if companies do raise prices instead of sell in volume, there will be some kind of fine because this will be considered a first blow since raising prices will cause inflation which could lead to a recession, the very thing this new economic system will prevent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Please explain how he went behind your back. Do you think he was obligated to get your permission and approval before writing a review?

No, but I hoped, at the very least, that the review would be accurate. It wasn't.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Let's suppose he did somehow go behind your back. Are you suggesting that his going behind your back is a reason for discounting his review? Wouldn't that be an ad hominem argument?

No, I am not criticizing him personally. But I know he did not study this book. He misunderstood a lot of what was written, and it all was due to the claim about the eyes, just like in here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you interested in looking at those observations 1 by 1?

I don't want to go through this again. You know what his observations were. Artemis did not. There is no way you will do this justice. He needs to read the chapter first. Then I wouldn't mind discussing it.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, measurements have to be accurate. But I still say that I don't think the time/light delay calculation is as important as people are claiming, unlike a mismatch in actual units of measurement itself which can throw a precise landing off entirely.

The light-time correction = 7,152KM
The unit of measurement mistake = 100KM
In what universe is 7,152KM < 100KM

Saying that the other parts of the calculations make it light-time correction insignificant is ridiculous since the exact position of the target planet or moon or comet, relative to earth, is basis for all other calculations.
You can take into account all the variables; Earth's speed and rotation, target speed and rotation, gravity of each celestial body, aberration, ect. but if you are incorrect about where the target is in space then you're not going to be able to hit the target.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to go through this again. You know what his observations were. Artemis did not. There is no way you will do this justice. He needs to read the chapter first. Then I wouldn't mind discussing it.

I am reading through the part of the book on sight.
Which observation would you like to start with? The first? When and where and in what capacity did he do his research on infant vision? I surely hope he never performed the ghastly study of removing an infant's eyelids and/or putting them in sensory isolation for years. I like that he does mention that people have studied infant vision and have theories about vision development. Of course, he immediately dismisses that information because, you know, scientists are self-important over educated know-it-alls who only regurgitate what they're taught and never actually question or study anything.

Or do you want to go into how dogs relying primarily on their sense of smell instead of vision is somehow a proof of efferent vision. I really don't understand how that is any kind of evidence for efferent vision. He doesn't really explain how seeing afferently wouldn't allow the dog to recognize his master while seeing efferent would. He simply states it as if it is a fact.

[Artemis Entreri]

Or we can discuss his "observation" that the eye does not have afferent nerves. When and how did he make this observation? How many eyes did he dissect and study? Was he able to study human eyes or animals?
You've said to me before that he didn't mean that the eye doesn't have afferent nerves. Just that they don't have afferent nerves like the other senses.
However, they do have afferent nerves similar to the other senses. What is different is the photoreceptors... but then all the senses have different and unique receptors that feed into afferent nerves. When you taste something the taste isn't impinging on the afferent nerve directly. Tastebuds are sending signals through the afferent nerve to the brain. When you touch something there are four different types of receptors that send signals to the brain through the afferent nerves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Because there is a relationship between any object that CAN BE SEEN DIRECTLY and the lens since this puts the light at the film or retina instantly (like the candle) since traveling light over millions of miles is not what is responsible for vision.

proportionality

The ratio of one quantity to another, especially the ratio of a part compared to a whole. In a mathematical context, a proportion is the statement of equality between two ratios.

Proportionality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Or we can discuss his "observation" that the eye does not have afferent nerves. When and how did he make this observation? How many eyes did he dissect and study? Was he able to study human eyes or animals?

He didn't dissect the eye. This was an inference based on his accurate observations. If the eyes work the way he described, then there can't be similar afferent nerves that transmute signals to the brain which are then decoded into normal sight. Obviously, the optic nerve is the connection between the eye and brain, but it doesn't tell us whether sight is efferent or afferent. The idea that the eyes are a sense organ had been established centuries ago and all of the experiments that have been done try to confirm what is already assumed to be true.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

You've said to me before that he didn't mean that the eye doesn't have afferent nerves. Just that they don't have afferent nerves like the other senses.
However, they do have afferent nerves similar to the other senses. What is different is the photoreceptors... but then all the senses have different and unique receptors that feed into afferent nerves. When you taste something the taste isn't impinging on the afferent nerve directly. Tastebuds are sending signals through the afferent nerve to the brain. When you touch something there are four different types of receptors that send signals to the brain through the afferent nerves.

All that you're saying is true, but when it comes to the eyes they work very differently and he explains how they are different. This observation doesn't make our world any less awe inspiring or mysterious, yet people are showing such resentment that he made such a claim, that it's hard to have a decent discussion without being crucified.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't dissect the eye. This was an inference based on his accurate observations.

What observations? He doesn't reference any observations for this idea he simply states it as if it is true.

If the eyes work the way he described, then there can't be similar afferent nerves that transmute signals to the brain which are then decoded into normal sight.

If something works the way I say it does then it would it can't not be how I say it is. This is circular and of no value.

Obviously, the optic nerve is the connection between the eye and brain, but it doesn't tell us whether sight is efferent or afferent.

At the very least it tells us that one of his observations is dead wrong. Also if the eye is sending signals through a nerve to the brain, that is the very definition of afferent.

The idea that the eyes are a sense organ had been established centuries ago and all of the experiments that have been done try to confirm what is already assumed to be true.

All experiments on vision simply confirm that the eyes are sense organs. There isn't one experiment ever done that indicates that they are not. Yet you keep arguing that they are not, why?

All that you're saying is true, but when it comes to the eyes they work very differently and he explains how they are different. This observation doesn't make our world any less awe inspiring or mysterious, yet people are showing such resentment that he made such a claim, that it's hard to have a decent discussion without being crucified.

Of course the eyes work differently, all of the sense work differently. But they are all afferent. They all receive external stimuli and transmit it through afferent nerves to the brain.
I don't see anyone arguing that the universe isn't awe inspiring or mysterious (what we do not yet understand about the universe and even ourselves is VAST)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

The light-time correction = 7,152KM
The unit of measurement mistake = 100KM
In what universe is 7,152KM < 100KM

Saying that the other parts of the calculations make it light-time correction insignificant is ridiculous since the exact position of the target planet or moon or comet, relative to earth, is basis for all other calculations.
You can take into account all the variables; Earth's speed and rotation, target speed and rotation, gravity of each celestial body, aberration, ect. but if you are incorrect about where the target is in space then you're not going to be able to hit the target.

Obviously. I just don't believe that this calculation (however essential it appears to be) proves that what we see is a delayed image. I know what people are going to say. They are going to say that it just so happens that this calculation is based on the time/light delay and we always hit the target, so it has to be true that we're right and you're wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I still say that I don't think the time/light delay calculation is as important as people are claiming,

The only reason Peacegirl is saying that the light/time factor is unimportant, is because it flatly disproves Lessans and efferent vision, so she's trying to downplay it's importance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

What observations? He doesn't reference any observations for this idea he simply states it as if it is true.

He explained what his observations were. He didn't have empirical proof but he knew his observations were correct.

If the eyes work the way he described, then there can't be similar afferent nerves that transmute signals to the brain which are then decoded into normal sight.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

If something works the way I say it does then it would it can't not be how I say it is. This is circular and of no value.

True, but this isn't just about something working because I say it does. There are reasons behind why I say it works in a particular way.

Obviously, the optic nerve is the connection between the eye and brain, but it doesn't tell us whether sight is efferent or afferent.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

At the very least it tells us that one of his observations is dead wrong. Also if the eye is sending signals through a nerve to the brain, that is the very definition of afferent.

He wasn't disputing that. He was only disputing that light, without the object, does not bring any information about the object through space/time to the eye which is then interpreted within the brain itself. He agreed that light causes the pupils to dilate and contract, which would send a signal through the optic nerve, but this would not be responsible for normal sight.

The idea that the eyes are a sense organ had been established centuries ago and all of the experiments that have been done try to confirm what is already assumed to be true.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

All experiments on vision simply confirm that the eyes are sense organs. There isn't one experiment ever done that indicates that they are not. Yet you keep arguing that they are not, why?

Because his explanation makes just as much sense as the afferent viewpoint. An example of where science skews the results is with dogs. My father said that a dog should be able to recognize his master from sight alone (without any cues from his other senses) if the eyes are a sense organ. The experiments that I have seen don't stack up. They are not reliable.

All that you're saying is true, but when it comes to the eyes they work very differently and he explains how they are different. This observation doesn't make our world any less awe inspiring or mysterious, yet people are showing such resentment that he made such a claim, that it's hard to have a decent discussion without being crucified.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Of course the eyes work differently, all of the sense work differently. But they are all afferent. They all receive external stimuli and transmit it through afferent nerves to the brain.

That's what he is disputing only when it comes to the eyes because he said they don't work in the same way as the other senses. You can't put a potato in the same classification as a fruit if it doesn't have the same characteristics as a fruit.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

I don't see anyone arguing that the universe isn't awe inspiring or mysterious (what we do not yet understand about the universe and even ourselves is VAST)

I believe they don't like this claim because they think it would make our universe less inspiring. I don't agree. Light still travels at 186,000 miles a second. All he has done is show our relationship to the external world and why this is significant. You are absolutely right that we don't yet understand a lot about the universe and even ourselves. My father just brought us that much closer to understanding ourselves in a revolutionary way but no one cares because if the claim about the eyes is crap, then no one will pay attention to his other discovery since that would be crap too. Now how do I defend what he has discovered with this kind of attitude?

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He explained what his observations were. He didn't have empirical proof but he knew his observations were correct.

Can you point that out these observations? He talks about light not sticking the optic nerve. And this is true, light strikes photoreceptors which transmit through the optic nerve. That is how afferent vision works

True, but this isn't just about something working because I say it does. There are reasons behind why I say it works in a particular way.

I didn't see him giving any reasons for why the eye would work the way he says it would. He simply says that it does. You've admitted that there is not explanation for the mechanics of efferent vision. You can not explain the mechanism through which efferent vision occurs.

Because his explanation makes just as much sense as the afferent viewpoint. An example of where science skews the results is with dogs. My father said that a dog should be able to recognize his master from sight alone (without any cues from his other senses) if the eyes are a sense organ. The experiments that I have seen don't stack up. They are not reliable.

Why would a dog be able to recognize its owner if it is seeing afferently?
Why would a dog not be able to recognize its owner if it is seeing efferently?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Can you point that out these observations? He talks about light not sticking the optic nerve. And this is true, light strikes photoreceptors which transmit through the optic nerve. That is how afferent vision works

The point he was making is that nothing in the light itself is capable of bringing the information through space/time. I know people refute this, but that's his claim.

True, but this isn't just about something working because I say it does. There are reasons behind why I say it works in a particular way.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

I didn't see him giving any reasons for why the eye would work the way he says it would. He simply says that it does. You've admitted that there is not explanation for the mechanics of efferent vision. You can not explain the mechanism through which efferent vision occurs.

I didn't say there is not an explanation for the mechanics of efferent vision. My explanation is no worse than the explanation scientists give for afferent vision. And he did give reasons for why the eye would work the way he says it would. Did you read the chapter?

Because his explanation makes just as much sense as the afferent viewpoint. An example of where science skews the results is with dogs. My father said that a dog should be able to recognize his master from sight alone (without any cues from his other senses) if the eyes are a sense organ. The experiments that I have seen don't stack up. They are not reliable.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Why would a dog be able to recognize its owner if it is seeing afferently?
Why would a dog not be able to recognize its owner if it is seeing efferently?

He would be able to recognize his owner if he was seeing afferently because the image of his master (I know there is not really an image. I hope you know that by now) would be traveling toward his photoreceptors, optic nerve, and brain where recognition would occur. This is not what happens.

He would not be able to recognize his owner if he was seeing efferently because there would be nothing in the light to allow this recognition to take place. Dogs need other cues such as their sense of hearing and smell.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the photon that left the Sun did not arrive. It was already absorbed by my eye. Only photons that did not interact with film or the retina made it to Earth at which time they would strike an object and be absorbed or reflected.

No-one asked you about those photons. My questions remain completely unanswered.


Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The point he was making is that nothing in the light itself is capable of bringing the information through space/time. I know people refute this, but that's his claim.

YOU have already agreed that this is wrong. Direction, intensity, and frequency, remember?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say there is not an explanation for the mechanics of efferent vision. My explanation is no worse than the explanation scientists give for afferent vision.

Liar. Your only attempted explanations have been flatly contradictory, so yes, they have obviously been worse than that for afferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would be able to recognize his owner if he was seeing afferently because the image of his master (I know there is not really an image. I hope you know that by now) would be traveling toward his photoreceptors, optic nerve, and brain where recognition would occur. This is not what happens.

Over a decade and you still can't say what you mean. Do you know why you keep speaking of traveling images while insisting that you know no-one thinks there are traveling images?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would not be able to recognize his owner if he was seeing efferently because there would be nothing in the light to allow this recognition to take place...

Light's direction, intensity, and frequency, remember?


Care to explain why you are still dishonestly evading my questions?

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would be able to recognize his owner if he was seeing afferently because the image of his master (I know there is not really an image. I hope you know that by now) would be traveling toward his photoreceptors, optic nerve, and brain where recognition would occur. This is not what happens.

He would not be able to recognize his owner if he was seeing efferently because there would be nothing in the light to allow this recognition to take place. Dogs need other cues such as their sense of hearing and smell.

So because the dog is seeing the person (efferent vision) it can't recognize them but if the dog is seeing light reflected from the person it can.
That still makes no sense.
Whether a dog can recognize it's owner, or anything else, from sight would have more to do with how the dog's brain stores memories than how it's eyes function.
I really don't see how this is any kind of evidence for efferent vision. People can recognize faces because we have more highly developed brains.
Speaking of which this lack of recognition actually does occur in people though and it is due to brain damage. Prosopagnosia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That still doesn't mean it's evidence for efferent vision.

Edit: It seems that Lessans knows this. He seems to think that a dogs mind doesn't work like that when talking about memorizing images or faces. However, I still don't see how this really tells us anything about sight. It's more about how the brain stores memories. Hell even humans' memory is stronger with smell than anything else. I'm not 100% certain on that one but I'm sure I've heard it many times.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but I hoped, at the very least, that the review would be accurate. It wasn't.

So, I ask you yet again, what do you mean by saying that he went behind your back?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I am not criticizing him personally. But I know he did not study this book. He misunderstood a lot of what was written, and it all was due to the claim about the eyes, just like in here.

It doesn't matter whether you are criticizing him personally or not. An ad hominem argument is not the same thing as a personal criticism, attack or insult. An ad hominem argument is an attempt to discredit another's argument based on some factor that has no bearing on the validity or soundness of the argument. Rather like the way you are attempting to discredit that fellow's review of the book by claiming that he went behind your back. As if his going behind your back had anything to do with the legitimacy of his review.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would not be able to recognize his owner if he was seeing efferently because there would be nothing in the light to allow this recognition to take place. Dogs need other cues such as their sense of hearing and smell.

Why can humans recognize faces by sight if we see efferently but other species cannot? In the past you've said it was due to language, but as has been shown dogs are capable of associating names with things.

Originally Posted by Artemis

Whether a dog can recognize it's owner, or anything else, from sight would have more to do with how the dog's brain stores memories than how it's eyes function.

Yes, this is much more likely, however this point has been simply dismissed by peacegirl with a definitive "nuh uh!"