A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't consider this focusing as some other process. The only difference is that we cannot focus at birth until other precipitating events of sound, touch, taste, and hearing occur first. I hope you don't throw in the towel just because all of your questions are not answered at this point. They may be clarified later on as we continue.

But it must be a completely different process: to bring something into focus as we understand the term you change the lens somehow (or move it) in order to change the way light is redirected. This does not happen in your version of sight.

Nor is there anything about it in the rest of the book as far as I am aware - at least not in the version you posted online.

Both you and your father use the term. What do you mean by it? What does he mean when he says the eyes are focused?

[Florence Jellem]

Well, boys, this silly woman has been here like forever, it seems. But Flo started reading the thread and quickly realized it wasn't worth two tits on a doorknob, so she stopped reading.

However, when the thread reaches 2,000 pages, will there be a party? If so, I'll bring the cheese, the white bread, the lettuce, the tomato and the mayo. I'll also bring deez nuts ---->

Let Flo know and I'll be ready to party down. If there any mashed taters, just be careful about that. I'm sure you know what I mean.

Irreducibly complex,
Flo Jellem

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But it must be a completely different process: to bring something into focus as we understand the term you change the lens somehow (or move it) in order to change the way light is redirected. This does not happen in your version of sight.

Whaaaatttt? The lens doesn't somehow change or move, or get redirected. Light works the same way. Please don't add something to this process that isn't there.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nor is there anything about it in the rest of the book as far as I am aware - at least not in the version you posted online.

Both you and your father use the term. What do you mean by it? What does he mean when he says the eyes are focused?

He means exactly what he says. Like in a camera, there is a mechanism to focus the light. The same thing here. The brain is the camera (so to speak) and it focuses the light so that the eyes can use that light to see.

[Vivisectus]

Whaaaatttt? The lens doesn't somehow change or move, or get redirected. Light works the same way. Please don't add something to this process that isn't there.

I mean in the regular conception of sight. You change the shape of a lens, or move it, to change the focus.

He means exactly what he says. Like in a camera, there is a mechanism to focus the light. The same thing here. The brain is the camera (so to speak) and it focuses the light so that the eyes can use that light to see.

That makes no sense at all, in many different ways. First off, what you are discussing when you are talking about cameras is inherently afferent: it redirects incoming light so a clear picture emerges. But this is not how we see at all, according to you and the book.

Secondly, the brain focuses the light? How does the brain manipulate light? That is impossible!

Thirdly, why must light be "focused" at all if no image travels on the waves of light? What does this "focusing" entail exactly?

You seem to be unable to answer this question, but you keep using that word. The book uses it a lot too. Can you kindly just explain what you mean when you use it? Why is it taking so long for you to answer such a simple question? This is getting really frustrating: you are always complaining that no-one takes the book seriously, but when I do so I get no answers at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not now, and not ever.

Why not? All I'm asking for is 5 words and a bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you going to fuck off?

I never said I was going to fuck off. But you did. So when are you going to fuck off?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NO, he said that stimuli from the senses starts the process which allows one to see what exists, not the source of the input.

The process of seeing happens independently of the other senses, the stimulation of the other 4 senses does not stimulate the brain to look, the eyes do that by themselves, the other 4 senses only signal the brain that there is something to look at. Vision has already started and continues to develop.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

I'll also bring deez nuts ---->

Well Peacegirl is providing nuts as well, so we're going to have lots.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whaaaatttt? The lens doesn't somehow change or move, or get redirected. Light works the same way. Please don't add something to this process that isn't there.

He means exactly what he says. Like in a camera, there is a mechanism to focus the light. The same thing here. The brain is the camera (so to speak) and it focuses the light so that the eyes can use that light to see.

To focus, in the accepted meaning of the word, means to move or change the lens in some way so as to "focus" the light onto the retina or film of the camera. Saying that the lens doesn't change or move, indicates that you have no understanding of "focus" in any sense.

[peacegirl]

Whaaaatttt? The lens doesn't somehow change or move, or get redirected. Light works the same way. Please don't add something to this process that isn't there.

I mean in the regular conception of sight. You change the shape of a lens, or move it, to change the focus.

He means exactly what he says. Like in a camera, there is a mechanism to focus the light. The same thing here. The brain is the camera (so to speak) and it focuses the light so that the eyes can use that light to see.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That makes no sense at all, in many different ways. First off, what you are discussing when you are talking about cameras is inherently afferent: it redirects incoming light so a clear picture emerges. But this is not how we see at all, according to you and the book.

It's not true that this is not how we see at all. That's exactly how we see. The brain acts like a camera in that it forces the eyes to focus the light. I think you're reading into this too much.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Secondly, the brain focuses the light? How does the brain manipulate light? That is impossible!

It doesn't manipulate light; it causes the eyes to focus the light which then allows us to see, otherwise objects would not be focused.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thirdly, why must light be "focused" at all if no image travels on the waves of light? What does this "focusing" entail exactly?

Light must be focused because it is light that is the condition of sight. He said that light itself striking the retina will cause the pupils to dilate and contract, but this will not produce sight without this focusing which occurs during infancy.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You seem to be unable to answer this question, but you keep using that word. The book uses it a lot too. Can you kindly just explain what you mean when you use it? Why is it taking so long for you to answer such a simple question? This is getting really frustrating: you are always complaining that no-one takes the book seriously, but when I do so I get no answers at all.

I'm trying Vivisectus. Everyone wants the mechanism. I can only offer you what his observations were. If you're getting frustrated, imagine how I feel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why not? All I'm asking for is 5 words and a bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you going to fuck off?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I never said I was going to fuck off. But you did. So when are you going to fuck off?

When I'm good and ready. And if you don't like it, find somewhere else to go. My god, there's a gazillion threads to visit other than mine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

To focus, in the accepted meaning of the word, means to move or change the lens in some way so as to "focus" the light onto the retina or film of the camera. Saying that the lens doesn't change or move, indicates that you have no understanding of "focus" in any sense.

When the brain forces a focusing of the light through the eyes, the lens obviously is moving or changing to make certain accommodations. There's nothing mysterious about this process. You're all making too much out of this. I need to move on. People are too hung up on this one word and we're not going to make any progress.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the brain forces a focusing of the light through the eyes, the lens obviously is moving or changing to make certain accommodations. There's nothing mysterious about this process. You're all making too much out of this. I need to move on. People are too hung up on this one word and we're not going to make any progress.

If you would use words in their accepted meanings there would be no problem, but you and Lessans insist on changing the meanings of words and not telling people what those new meanings are. If you and Lessans could be more clear in what you are trying to say, people could be much more direct in correcting your mistakes. As it is people need to fish around, and question you to find out what you mean, in order to tell you where you went wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the brain forces a focusing of the light through the eyes, the lens obviously is moving or changing to make certain accommodations. There's nothing mysterious about this process. You're all making too much out of this. I need to move on. People are too hung up on this one word and we're not going to make any progress.

You have just contradicted yourself, would you like to clarify what you mean, providing you understand focus in the first place.

The brain is not equivalent to a camera. The eyes could be considered as equivalent to a camera. Do you understand any of this at all?

[Vivisectus]

It's not true that this is not how we see at all. That's exactly how we see. The brain acts like a camera in that it forces the eyes to focus the light. I think you're reading into this too much.

No - according to your idea, it is not the detecting of light that creates the image. And what does this "focusing" entail that the eyes now do?

It doesn't manipulate light; it causes the eyes to focus the light which then allows us to see, otherwise objects would not be focused.

Right - so it is the eyes that "focus". And what does this focusing entail?

Light must be focused because it is light that is the condition of sight. He said that light itself striking the retina will cause the pupils to dilate and contract, but this will not produce sight without this focusing which occurs during infancy.

Ok - so focusing is something the brain makes the eyes do, during infancy?

But what does it entail?

I'm trying Vivisectus. Everyone wants the mechanism. I can only offer you what his observations were. If you're getting frustrated, imagine how I feel.

I am not neccesarily looking for a mechanism. I just want to know what you mean when you use the word "focus". Both you and the book say it a lot, so sure you know what it actually means?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the brain forces a focusing of the light through the eyes, the lens obviously is moving or changing to make certain accommodations. There's nothing mysterious about this process.

If there is nothing mysterious about the process, then quickly explain it so we can move on. What does the brain force the lens of the eye to do that focuses the light, and where does the lens focus the light, and why does it need to do this at all in efferent vision? What are the accommodations that need to be made so that the brain can see through the eyes?

[Dragar]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you would use words in their accepted meanings there would be no problem, but you and Lessans insist on changing the meanings of words and not telling people what those new meanings are. If you and Lessans could be more clear in what you are trying to say, people could be much more direct in correcting your mistakes. As it is people need to fish around, and question you to find out what you mean, in order to tell you where you went wrong.

There is no new meaning. Hahaha, is that what you're out for; to correct me in my mistakes. What a big joke this is!

[But]

peacegirl, what is the function of the three different types of cones in the retina?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that we cannot focus at birth until other precipitating events of sound, touch, taste, and hearing occur first.

This is nonsense, infants can focus their eyes at birth, and don't depend on the other senses to initiate seeing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

peacegirl, what is the function of the three different types of cones in the retina?

Let it go. Now that I know what your motive is, I have no desire to answer you. You can explain how wrong I am without testing me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let it go. Now that I know what your motive is, I have no desire to answer you. You can explain how wrong I am without testing me.

But has never stated his motives, any motive that you believe him to have are your projections of your motives onto him. You have been projecting motives onto others for as long as you have been here, you are acting extremely paranoid and you have only brought the hostility onto your self by your own actions. Or lack of action as in refusing, or being unable to answer questions

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let it go. Now that I know what your motive is, I have no desire to answer you. You can explain how wrong I am without testing me.

It would be really easy to look it up, but you don't want to find out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If there is nothing mysterious about the process, then quickly explain it so we can move on. What does the brain force the lens of the eye to do that focuses the light, and where does the lens focus the light, and why does it need to do this at all in efferent vision? What are the accommodations that need to be made so that the brain can see through the eyes?

The brain is not seeing through the eyes. That sounds weird and there is nothing weird about this account. The brain is causing the eyes to focus because desire comes from the brain, not the eyes, and it is this desire to see --- due to stimulation of the 4 senses --- that begins the focusing process. It has nothing to do with an undeveloped ciliary muscle.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

It would be really easy to look it up, but you don't want to find out.

None of this proves that what we are seeing is just a representation.

A photoreceptor cell is a specialized type of neuron found in the retina that is capable of phototransduction. The great biological importance of photoreceptors is that they convert light (visible electromagnetic radiation) into signals that can stimulate biological processes. To be more specific, photoreceptor proteins in the cell absorb photons, triggering a change in the cell's membrane potential.

There are currently three known types of photoreceptor cells in mammalian eyes: rods, cones, and photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. The two classic photoreceptor cells are rods and cones, each contributing information used by the visual system to form a representation of the visual world, sight. The rods are narrower than the cones and distributed differently across the retina, but the chemical process in each that supports phototransduction is similar.[1] A third class of photoreceptor cells was discovered during the 1990s:[2] the photosensitive ganglion cells. These cells do not contribute to sight directly, but are thought to support circadian rhythms and pupillary reflex.

There are major functional differences between the rods and cones. Rods are extremely sensitive, and can be triggered by a single photon.[3][4] At very low light levels, visual experience is based solely on the rod signal. This explains why colors cannot be seen at low light levels: only one type of photoreceptor cell is active.

Photoreceptor cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

None of this proves that what we are seeing is just a representation.

What is that supposed to mean?