A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is so sad. I am not going to argue with you thedoc. You won and you ruined the entire thread. It's okay. Feel good about yourself.

If you're finally going to let Lessans rest in peace and put his book in the dustbin where it belongs, then I have done some good in this world and on this forum. Good ole Pinwheel Lessans, may he rest in peace now, because he surely hasn't for the last 14 years.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Has the thread been ruined again?

Well, we can hope it's for the last time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you're finally going to let Lessans rest in peace and put his book in the dustbin where it belongs, then I have done some good in this world and on this forum. Good ole Pinwheel Lessans, may he rest in peace now, because he surely hasn't for the last 14 years.

You have done nothing good for this world, but don't let anyone tell you that. Ignorance is bliss!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ignorance is bliss!

An astute observation from someone who knows whereof she speaks.

[Vivisectus]

Anyway, I engages with the text you quoted, and mentioned a number of questions and critical notes. Can you tell me what you feel those passages mean?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Look, you really cannot blame people for not believing a claim when it is not supported in any way.

I already told people that he did not collect empirical data. If that's what you're looking for, you're not going to find it. That is not how he came to his conclusions, although they can be verified.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Just look at this for example:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

For starters the sentence is hard to even make sense of. Look through what? Through experience? Or through the metaphorical doorways? That makes no sense, as they are just a figure of speech!

No, it's not a metaphor. Doorways in is equivalent to "afferent" pathways. He is explaining how sight takes place. When we're born our eyes are not focused. All the other senses are in full working order. As we experience the world through the other senses, this stimulation awakens the brain to desire to see. It causes the brain to focus the eyes.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But more importantly, it is simply a claim, your father telling us what he believes to be true. He does not explain why he believes it to be true, so we can check if we find that reason convincing also. So that leaves us with no information but that your father believed this.

I didn't even finish copy/pasting this tract. Some of your questions may be answered as he explains his reasoning.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then it goes on:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Focusing in the context of sight is something inherently afferent: it is all about the point where incoming light from an object hits a retina, film or light detector.

I disagree that focusing in the context of sight is something inherently afferent. That's what he is disputing. It's correct that incoming light from an object hits the retina, film or light detector, but this has nothing to do with whether the eyes are focused to be able to use that light in the same way as the other senses.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Plus, I don't think "as binoculars" is even grammatically correct here. Plus, what on earth does he mean by comparing it to binoculars? What does he think binoculars do that is happening here as well?

He used binoculars as an analogy. Binoculars are a prime example of how the brain is able to focus both eyes to view a distant object.

Binoculars, field glasses or binocular telescopes are a pair of identical or mirror-symmetrical telescopes mounted side-by-side and aligned to point accurately in the same direction, allowing the viewer to use both eyes (binocular vision) when viewing distant objects. Most are sized to be held using both hands, although sizes vary widely from opera glasses to large pedestal mounted military models.

Unlike a (monocular) telescope, binoculars give users a three-dimensional image: for nearer objects the two views, presented to each of the viewer's eyes from slightly different viewpoints, produce a merged view with an impression of depth.

Binoculars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again, he makes all these rather vague claims, but does not tell us why he believes it to be true, whatever it IS exactly.

He could have been more specific but I believe he gave enough information for scientists to expand on.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The next bit is even worse:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What a terrible sentence - almost like the waves of light are caused by the striking of the optic nerve (of the same waves of light). The prose needs cleaning up.

What he is saying is that light does not bring anything from the external world to us. We begin to focus as infants due to the experience that is gained by the other senses. I don't want to touch his wording.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But that aside, it is again a terribly vague claim. So - experience is gained, but not because of light detected by the retina...

Light is detected (the pupils contract and dilate) but this has nothing to do with focusing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

, but by "what is looked at" (which IS gaining experience) "In relation to the afferent experience of the senses".

Right.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again, the sentence is so incredibly unclear that it is hard to be sure what he is trying to say, but it sure seems as if he claims that whatever we see, we must also experience through a different sense. But that is patently absurd: we see things all the time that we do not detect through any other sense.

That's not what he's saying Vivisectus. He is only explaining what happens as infants. Once the infant has gained enough sense experience by being talked to, held, played with, sang to, etc., the brain begins to focus the eyes. After the eyes focus, they stay focused.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And it just goes on and on like this. Very unclear writing, full of unsupported claims. How is this ever going to convince anyone? You really cannot blame people for rejecting it as garbled nonsense, because with the best will in the world it is impossible to make sense of.

Can you make the case for his position in your own words, clearly and concisely?

I'm trying. You have to give him a chance. He gives a more detailed explanation and more examples through the book. If you carefully read the text, you will get an understanding of his reasoning even if you aren't sure his observations are correct.

[But]

peacegirl, what do you think the rods and cones in the retina do?

[The Lone Ranger]

As a follow-up, why do you think that the pupils constrict and dilate in response to changing light levels?


Here's a hint: as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, neither the pupils (which are just holes) nor the iris muscles are light-sensitive. Guess where the only photosensitive structures are in the eye?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As a follow-up, why do you think that the pupils constrict and dilate in response to changing light levels?


Here's a hint: as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, neither the pupils (which are just holes) nor the iris muscles are light-sensitive. Guess where the only photosensitive structures are in the eye?

But are photosensitive structures afferent or efferent? (I already know the answer, but it might be interesting to hear Peacegirl's response.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

peacegirl, what do you think the rods and cones in the retina do?

Perhaps you should describe in more detail what the rods and cones are. Other than ornamental little do-dads.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, you said you were going to fuck off.

When exactly will you be fucking off?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once it is understood that something existing in the external
world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that
the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes.
[/I]

Wow! I can just imagine a little guy crouching down inside the skull, peering out through the eyes but somehow actually touching the objects being looked at, That must be what Lessans thought was happening. I can hardly wait to read what Peasegirl comes up with next.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have done nothing good for this world, but don't let anyone tell you that. Ignorance is bliss!

But I feel good about myself, so I must be moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, Wow! what a rush.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what he's saying Vivisectus. He is only explaining what happens as infants. Once the infant has gained enough sense experience by being talked to, held, played with, sang to, etc., the brain begins to focus the eyes. After the eyes focus, they stay focused.

After all this time, you still understand the word 'focus', do you?

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told people that he did not collect empirical data. If that's what you're looking for, you're not going to find it. That is not how he came to his conclusions, although they can be verified.

The problem is, he did not include any other support either.

No, it's not a metaphor. Doorways in is equivalent to "afferent" pathways. He is explaining how sight takes place. When we're born our eyes are not focused. All the other senses are in full working order. As we experience the world through the other senses, this stimulation awakens the brain to desire to see. It causes the brain to focus the eyes.

SO basically that means the eyes are... holes? It makes no sense. And as I pointed out later on, "focus" is a term in the context of optics, an inherently afferent process. While the efferent process is never even mentioned, let alone explained. To top off this vague muddle sundae, it remains a claim, an opinion. Why does he believe this? What led him to this conclusion? You do not seem to know, and yet you claim he does explain it? Have you not read the book or something?

I didn't even finish copy/pasting this tract. Some of your questions may be answered as he explains his reasoning.

No, there are just more claims I am afraid. It is claims all the way down. But hey - it is your book, you know it better than anyone. Why don't you just explain why he believed it, and what convinced you?

I disagree that focusing in the context of sight is something inherently afferent. That's what he is disputing. It's correct that incoming light from an object hits the retina, film or light detector, but this has nothing to do with whether the eyes are focused to be able to use that light in the same way as the other senses.

But using light as in the other senses is what the term focus is about: making sure light is concentrated on a sensor in the right spot to produce a clear image.

You seem to be using an ideosyncratic meaning of the word "focus". It apparently just means "directing the attention to", or "getting to see clearly" roughly.

He used binoculars as an analogy. Binoculars are a prime example of how the brain is able to focus both eyes to view a distant object.

Really? Because all binoculars do is redirect light.

He could have been more specific but I believe he gave enough information for scientists to expand on.

But why should we believe he was right? All I see is claims, opinions. If i knew why he believed those things to be true, I could see if I find those reasons convincing too, or if I have some critique. We could then see if my critique is valid, etc.

But right now I cannot do that, because it is not given.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The next bit is even worse:

What he is saying is that light does not bring anything from the external world to us. We begin to focus as infants due to the experience that is gained by the other senses. I don't want to touch his wording.

No, "focus" means to redirect light to the appropriate spot on a sensor to get a good picture. What you mean is something else. Please define what you mean when you say "focus".

Light is detected (the pupils contract and dilate) but this has nothing to do with focusing.

Again - please define that word.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

, but by "what is looked at" (which IS gaining experience) "In relation to the afferent experience of the senses".

Right.

That's not what he's saying Vivisectus. He is only explaining what happens as infants. Once the infant has gained enough sense experience by being talked to, held, played with, sang to, etc., the brain begins to focus the eyes. After the eyes focus, they stay focused.

Again, you really need to examine what you think that word means.

I'm trying. You have to give him a chance. He gives a more detailed explanation and more examples through the book. If you carefully read the text, you will get an understanding of his reasoning even if you aren't sure his observations are correct.

Well, I am still waiting for you to begin. And all I have found is claims, but I am more than willing to give you a chance to prove me wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As a follow-up, why do you think that the pupils constrict and dilate in response to changing light levels?


Here's a hint: as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, neither the pupils (which are just holes) nor the iris muscles are light-sensitive. Guess where the only photosensitive structures are in the eye?

The retina. Okay, so light strikes the retina which causes the pupil to contract or dilate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you said you were going to fuck off.

When exactly will you be fucking off?

What's it to you Spacemonkey? And I never said I will be fucking off in those words.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

After all this time, you still understand the word 'focus', do you?

You are talking about a different kind of focus which involves adjusting one's eye or a lens so as to make a clear image. That's not what I'm talking about here.

[But]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You seem to be using an ideosyncratic meaning of the word "focus". It apparently just means "directing the attention to", or "getting to see clearly" roughly.

It's similar to how she apparently uses the word "observation" loosely to mean "remark, statement".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are talking about a different kind of focus which involves adjusting one's eye or a lens so as to make a clear image. That's not what I'm talking about here.

Then what, exactly, are you talking about.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's it to you Spacemonkey? And I never said I will be fucking off in those words.

Wanna bet? I'll wager you a copy of the book that you did. Agreed?

[thedoc]

[quote=Vivisectus;1252626]

No, there are just more claims I am afraid. It is claims all the way down. But hey - it is your book, you know it better than anyone. Why don't you just explain why he believed it, and what convinced you?

Lessans believed it because he didn't know any better, and Peacegirl believes it because her daddy said so.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are talking about a different kind of focus which involves adjusting one's eye or a lens so as to make a clear image. That's not what I'm talking about here.

So why not use the appropriate word?

I think you don't even know what you're talking about, so you're forced to use these vague words that have well defined meanings in the same context, to make it sound like you know what's going on. You don't.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by But

It's similar to how she apparently uses the word "observation" loosely to mean "remark, statement".

Ah, but a Lessanian Observation is not just a remark or a statement, since remarks or statements can be true or untrue. When Peacegirl calls something an observation she means that the idea expressed in that observation is self-evidently true: it does not require any test, or any further support.

Examples are that the eyes are not sense organs, or that it is impossible to wrong someone unprovoked when you know you will never be blamed for it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So why not use the appropriate word?

I think you don't even know what you're talking about, so you're forced to use these vague words that have well defined meanings in the same context, to make it sound like you know what's going on. You don't.

Peacegirl, what does "focus" mean when you use the word?