A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Let's work it out!

If we see it in real time, we'd see the supernova and then, millions of years later, we'd see the neutrinos from the explosion arrive at our location from that huge distance away.

If we see it in delayed time, we'd only see the supernova at the same time the neutrinos arrive.

Since the latter happens, not the former, we see in delayed time and Lessans is, just like every other experiment tells us, wrong.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

That is if science really knows enough about what they're claiming. I don't know enough about neutrinos to make a comment. That's why I am politely asking people to study Lessans' claim rather than to try to disprove him by default.

[peacegirl]

What is sad about this whole discussion is that Lessans' actual demonstration of how the brain and eyes work are being overlooked, all due to the word "sense." So let's leave out the word. I don't care if our eyes are sense organs or not, and he didn't care either. If you believe the eyes are a sense organ, so be it. This should not stop the discussion in its tracks, which it has done for 3 years. He wanted people to understand how the brain and eyes work in relation to words so we can separate truth from fiction. This knowledge will give us a greater understanding of ourselves and our relationship to each other.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is if science really knows enough about what they're claiming. I don't know enough about neutrinos to make a comment.

So in order for Lessans to be right, we have to fail to understand neutrinos and the moons of Jupiter and how the eye works (to name merely three), all completely independently and in such a way that they all force us to conclude Lessans is wrong in entirely different ways.

You're grasping at straws.

(You know the same experiment works with the moons of other distant planets, right?)

That's why I am politely asking people to study Lessans' claim rather than to try to disprove him by default.

We've studied it. There's nothing there; it was ruled out centuries ago. Let it go.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is sad about this whole discussion is that Lessans' actual demonstration of how the brain and eyes work are being overlooked, all due to the word "sense." So let's leave out the word. I don't care if our eyes are sense organs or not, and he didn't care either. If you believe the eyes are a sense organ, so be it. This should not stop the discussion in its tracks, which it has done for 3 years. He wanted people to understand how the brain and eyes work in relation to words so we can separate truth from fiction. This knowledge will give us a greater understanding of ourselves and our relationship to each other.

People do understand how the brain eyes work, it has been well understood for many years and it has nothing to do with the brain projecting words onto the outside world as Lessans claims. The labeling is all internal, inside the brain during the process of interpreting the signals that the eyes send to the brain to be interpreted as images. Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then the question remains: Are we seeing these explosions in delayed or real time? Everything that has been theorized regarding sight may not be accurate. These are theories only, and although scientific theory is considered as close to fact as one will get; by definition it still remains a theory. How many times has science been forced to retract what they originally believed to be solid evidence in support of a particular theory? Scientists have to keep the door open, or all objectivity will be lost.

Science does not throw out solid evidence but science will discard or revise a theory to suit additional evidence or evidence that proves that an original idea was incorrect. Usually a theory is developed based on limited observations when those limited observations are all there are. But when better and more complete observations are documented the theory is corrected. Lessans presented no evidence based on observations of people or events but made claims based solely on his own imaginings of how he thought things should be. People don't behave like billiard balls, they are much more complex and less predictable and much different from each other. Lessans was trying to claim that all people would act the same way in the same situation. Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then the question remains: Are we seeing these explosions in delayed or real time? Everything that has been theorized regarding sight may not be accurate. These are theories only, and although scientific theory is considered as close to fact as one will get; by definition it still remains a theory. How many times has science been forced to retract what they originally believed to be solid evidence in support of a particular theory? Scientists have to keep the door open, or all objectivity will be lost.

There is no question for the rest of us, you are the only one with doubts and that is due to your lack of understanding. We see a supernova in delayed time, and everything that has been theorized about vision has been tested and verified many times over. Only a person who is very ignorant would use the phrase "These are theories only".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So in order for Lessans to be right, we have to fail to understand neutrinos and the moons of Jupiter and how the eye works (to name merely three), all completely independently and in such a way that they all force us to conclude Lessans is wrong in entirely different ways.

You're grasping at straws.

(You know the same experiment works with the moons of other distant planets, right?)

Like I said, it doesn't matter at this point. In fact, I'm going to accept that the eyes are a sense organ so that this backlash does not prevent people from trying to understand what his claim was about, and whether it had any merit. You cannot tell me that it doesn't have merit without a thorough investigation.

That's why I am politely asking people to study Lessans' claim rather than to try to disprove him by default.

Originally Posted by Dragar

We've studied it.

Who studied it? The people in this thread? Is that what you're counting on for proof? Give me a break.

Originally Posted by Dragar

There's nothing there; it was ruled out centuries ago. Let it go.

What was ruled out? Please explain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Science does not throw out solid evidence but science will discard or revise a theory to suit additional evidence or evidence that proves that an original idea was incorrect. Usually a theory is developed based on limited observations when those limited observations are all there are. But when better and more complete observations are documented the theory is corrected. Lessans presented no evidence based on observations of people or events but made claims based solely on his own imaginings of how he thought things should be. People don't behave like billiard balls, they are much more complex and less predictable and much different from each other. Lessans was trying to claim that all people would act the same way in the same situation. Lessans was wrong.

You are so ignorant, it's beyond comprehension. You have no understanding of his discoveries at all. So go on blathering, which I know you will. It does not change the truth, and the truth will come out no matter how hard you try to discredit this man.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

People do understand how the brain eyes work, it has been well understood for many years and it has nothing to do with the brain projecting words onto the outside world as Lessans claims. The labeling is all internal, inside the brain during the process of interpreting the signals that the eyes send to the brain to be interpreted as images. Lessans was wrong.

You can't even explain his demonstration at all. If you know so much about it, then explain it for everyone. I don't believe you can. You have no understanding of what he was demonstrating. You're a big fat know it all doc. That's all you are. All you do is mimic what others are saying. You know nothing about his first discovery on determinism. It's a joke. You have jumped to conclusions about this book for 3 years trying to ruin this man's reputation. It won't happen, but I still wish I had never met you.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, it doesn't matter at this point. In fact, I'm going to accept that the eyes are a sense organ so that this backlash does not prevent people from trying to understand what his claim was about, and whether it had any merit.

Good idea. It would indeed be foolish to insist on arguing this point.

You cannot tell me that it doesn't have merit without a thorough investigation.

Although now you've decided you have to argue it after all.

Lessan's ideas are without merit. See, I can too.

Who studied it? The people in this thread? Is that what you're counting on for proof? Give me a break.

You really are an idiot.

What was ruled out? Please explain.

Lessans ideas on vision. What do you think we're talking about? Did you lose the topic of conversation half way through your reply to this post?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't even explain his demonstration at all. If you know so much about it, then explain it for everyone. I don't believe you can. You have no understanding of what he was demonstrating. You're a big fat know it all doc. That's all you are. All you do is mimic what others are saying. You know nothing about his first discovery on determinism. It's a joke. You have jumped to conclusions about this book for 3 years trying to ruin this man's reputation. It won't happen, but I still wish I had never met you.

Lessans never demonstrated anything, he made claims about how he believed the brain and eye worked, and then proceeded to describe the process as the brain projecting words onto the outside world. This is not what happens and it is not what psychology understands as happening. The brain applies words to the images that it forms from the signals transmitted to it from the eyes based on the light that enters the eye and strikes the retina. Lessans claims about determinism and free will are the only claims that cannot be tested by empirical means and proven wrong. Everything else can be demonstrated to be incorrect, so it is reasonable to assume that he was completely off base with these claims as well. Scream on about how you believe in your father's infallibility, but it is only your daughterly devotion that keeps you going. Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is if science really knows enough about what they're claiming. I don't know enough about neutrinos to make a comment.

You cannot tell me that it doesn't have merit without a thorough investigation.

Who studied it? The people in this thread? Is that what you're counting on for proof? Give me a break.

What was ruled out? Please explain.

The bolded comment, pretty much sums it up.

Lessans ideas have been thoroughly studied in the past, Look it up.

Science has studied these ideas before, look it up.

Science has studied these ideas and ruled them out as possibilities, look it up.

Or are you just too lazy and scared to look at data that might contradict what your father wrote.
How can you dismiss data that you refuse to consider, that is very disingenuous on your part.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not change the truth, and the truth will come out no matter how hard you try to discredit this man.

Yes, the truth has come out and Lessans has been proven wrong many times over for many years.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have jumped to conclusions about this book for 3 years trying to ruin this man's reputation. It won't happen, but I still wish I had never met you.

I would hardly call 4 or more years exposure to this work as jumping to conclusions. Lessans has made claims that are clearly wrong, and that cannot be overlooked.

As my father used to say,
"You can wish in one hand, and shit in the other.
And see which one gets full the quickest."

You are doing more to destroy Lessans reputation than anyone else, as you continue to post and defend his nonsense. Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I would hardly call 4 or more years exposure to this work as jumping to conclusions. Lessans has made claims that are clearly wrong, and that cannot be overlooked.

As my father used to say,
"You can wish in one hand, and shit in the other.
And see which one gets full the quickest."

You are doing more to destroy Lessans reputation than anyone else, as you continue to post and defend his nonsense. Lessans was wrong.

No doc, I am not ruining my father's reputation because there's nothing to ruin. He made an important observation. I only hope that his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ doesn't prevent people from trying to understand and confirm his observations, since they can be independently tested.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The bolded comment, pretty much sums it up.

Lessans ideas have been thoroughly studied in the past, Look it up.

Science has studied these ideas before, look it up.

Science has studied these ideas and ruled them out as possibilities, look it up.

Or are you just too lazy and scared to look at data that might contradict what your father wrote.
How can you dismiss data that you refuse to consider, that is very disingenuous on your part.

What studies are you referring to? If they were available, I would definitely read them but I have not found any that negate Lessans' findings. Not one. If you're so sure the studies are online, help me find them and pass on the links. I don't believe you can because there haven't been any studies to prove him wrong. All you do is make generalizations (which is a bunch of hot air) but can't back up anything you say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans never demonstrated anything, he made claims about how he believed the brain and eye worked, and then proceeded to describe the process as the brain projecting words onto the outside world.

That is not what he said doc. You're not even close. No wonder you're so confused.

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is not what happens and it is not what psychology understands as happening. The brain applies words to the images that it forms from the signals transmitted to it from the eyes based on the light that enters the eye and strikes the retina.

You have absolutely no understanding of his claim, so stop being an ignoramus while you have the chance. You will keep blathering and blathering without one shred of understanding.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans claims about determinism and free will are the only claims that cannot be tested by empirical means and proven wrong. Everything else can be demonstrated to be incorrect, so it is reasonable to assume that he was completely off base with these claims as well. Scream on about how you believe in your father's infallibility, but it is only your daughterly devotion that keeps you going. Lessans was wrong.

What BS is coming out of your mouth now? No, it is not reasonable to assume something about a person based on a flimsy association. That's what people do when they profile an individual based on their race or nationality. That's not what science is about. You are not a scientist.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what he said doc. You're not even close. No wonder you're so confused.

You have absolutely no understanding of his claim.

In the 2011 edition of the book Ch 4 Page 123 to page 135 Lessans explains that the brain/eye projects words onto the external images of objects in the world.

Have you corrupted the holy words of your father yet again in a later edition that has changed what he wrote?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what science is about. You are not a scientist.

I am much more of a scientists than you will ever be.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, I thought you said you were ignoring me, is that just another lie?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I am much more of a scientists than you will ever be.

You're such a schoolboy. Your insults have no effect on the validity of Lessans' findings. Just remember that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Liar. You explicitly AGREED that the questions do apply, and still refused to answer. Here they are again below. Explain how any of them are not applicable.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're such a schoolboy. Your insults have no effect on the validity of Lessans' findings. Just remember that.

My comments are only perceived as insults because they disagree with Lessans ideas. Lessans ideas are invalid because they contradict reality, Lessans didn't find anything, he just made up a lot of nonsense.

Being a schoolboy is a long way in the past, but I wish I knew then what I know now, I would have gotten in a lot more trouble.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What studies are you referring to? If they were available, I would definitely read them but I have not found any that negate Lessans' findings. Not one.

Really?

Okay then, here's a very brief list of some studies to get you started. It took less than 10 seconds to find them, by the way. If you want to read the original articles, You can easily find them in the stacks of any decent university library. Most of them are available online, as well. In fact, you should be able to easily get each of them through PubMed.

Do keep in mind, this is a very brief listing of just a tiny number of the multitudinous studies which demonstrate that Lessans was completely and utterly wrong about how the eyes function -- and that his claim that the eyes are not sense organs isn't just wrong, it's ludicrously wrong. (For particularly insightful analysis, compare the functioning of visual transduction pathways to the functioning of the olfactory transduction pathways in the nose.)



So, pick ... say ... 5 of the papers and tell us in detail what the researchers got wrong. Was their methodology flawed? If so, explain in full or be exposed as a liar. Was their analysis wrong? If so, explain in full or be exposed as a liar.

Do keep in mind that I am a scientist, and I have done research in the field, including dissection of human eyes.

• Korenbrot, J. I., and T. I. Rebrik. 2002. Tuning outer segments Ca2+ homeostasis to phototransduction in rods and cones. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 514: 179 - 203.
  
  
• Miller, J. L. and J. I. Korenbrot. 1994. Differences in calcium homeostasis between retinal rod and cone photoreceptors revealed by the effects of voltage on the cGMP-gated conductance in intact cells. The Journal of General Physiology. 104(5): 909 - 940.
  
  
• J. I. Korenbrot. 1995. Ca2+ flux in retinal rod and cone outer segments: differences in Ca2+ selectivity of the cGMP-gated ion channels and Ca2+ clearance rates. Cell Calcium. October; 18(4): 285 - 300.
  
  
• Ohyama, T., A. Picones, and J. I. Korenbrot. 2002. Voltage-depences of ion permeation in cyclic GMP-gated ion channels is optimized for cell function in rod and cone photoreceptors. The Journal of General Physiology. April, 119(4): 341 - 354.
  
  
• Korenbrot, J. I. 2012. Speed, sensitivity, and stability of the light response in rod and cone photoreceptors: facts and models. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. September, 31(5): 442 - 466.
  
  
• Koch, K. W. and D. Dell'Orco. 2015. Protein and signaling networks in vertebrate photoreceptor cells. Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience. November 18, 8:67.
  
  
• Calvert, P. D., T. W. Ho, Y. M. LeFebvre, and V. Y. Arshavsky. 1998. Onset of feedback reactions underlying vertebrate rod photoreceptor light adaptation. The Journal of General Physiology. January, 111(1): 39 - 51.
  
  
• Calvert, P. D. , V. I. Govardovskii, V. Y. Arshavsky, and C. L. Makino. 2002. Two temporal phases of light adaptation in retinal rods. The Journal of General Physiology. February, 119(2): 129 - 145.
  
  
• Arshavsky, V. Y. and T. G. Wensel. 2013. Timing is everything: GTPase regulation in phototransduction. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. November 21, 54(12): 7725 - 7733.
  
  
• Skiba, N. P., J. A. Hopp, and V. Y. Arshavsky. 2000. The effector enzyme regulates the duration of G protein signaling in vertebrate photoreceptors by increasing the affinity between transducer and RGS protein. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. October 20, 275(42): 32716 - 32720.
  
  
• Pearring, J. N., R. Y. Salinas, S. A. Baker, and V. Y. Arshavsky. 2013. Protein sorting, targeting and trafficking in photoreceptor cells. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. September 36: 24 - 51.
  
  
• Bi, Y. X. Wang, and A. Caramazza. 2016. Object domain and modality in the ventral visual pathway. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. March 1, S1364-6613.
  
  
• Wang, X., M. V. Peelen, Z. Han, C. He, A. Caramazza, and Y. Bi. 2015. How visual is the visual cortex? comparing connectional and functional fingerprints between congenitally blind and sighted individuals. The Journal of Neuroscience. September 9, 35(36): 12545 - 12559.
  
  
• Sani, L., E. Ricciardi, C. Gentili, N. Vanello, J. V. Haxby, and P. Pietrini. 2010. Effects of visual experience on the human MT+ functional connectivity networks: an fMRI study of motion perception in sighted and congenitally blind individuals. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. December 20, 4: 159.
  
  
• Ricciardi, E., D. Bonino, S. Pellegrini, and P. Pietrini. 2014. Mind the blind brain to understand the sighted one! is there a supramodal cortical functional architecture? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. April, 41: 64 - 77.
  
  
• Bonino, D., E. Ricciardi, G. Bernardi, L. Sani, C. Gentili, T. Vecchi, and P. Pietrini. 2015. Spatial imagery relies on a sensory independent, though sensory sensitive, functional organization within the parietal cortex: a fMRI study of angle discrimination in sighted and congenitally blind individuals. Neuropsychologia. February, 68: 59 - 70.
  

I realize, of course, that this is a very, very cursory introduction to the field. After all, a less-than-10-second search of PubMed turned up more than 2,500 such articles. And I deliberately used a very narrow search field, since a broader search turned up more than 50,000 articles.

As such, if you feel that these articles don't provide a sufficiently detailed analysis of human vision and how it works, I'll happily provide a few thousand more for your careful perusal.


By the way, if I were you, I'd pay particular attention to the articles comparing the functioning of the visual pathways in sighted vs. congenitally blind individuals. Not only do they provide quite a bit of information about the functioning of the eyes, visual pathway, and visual cortex of the brain, they provide key insights in how the visual systems adapt to changing conditions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

My comments are only perceived as insults because they disagree with Lessans ideas. Lessans ideas are invalid because they contradict reality, Lessans didn't find anything, he just made up a lot of nonsense.

Being a schoolboy is a long way in the past, but I wish I knew then what I know now, I would have gotten in a lot more trouble.

Keep convincing yourself that Lessans was wrong. Your comments have no bearing on the reality of Lessans' observations. You don't even understand what he observed. You can't even explain it in a coherent way.