A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

[quote=Vivisectus;1265651]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Moons of Jupiter looks airtight, but if Lessans is right (which is yet to be established), there is some other reason for the delay.

And if pigs CAN fly, then there is some other reason we never see them do it.

I cannot believe my computer erased all my answers and I have to start all over again. Where does this relate. Nevermind.

There was nothing wrong with that sentence.

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience ...

It then has children “seeing through” that accumulation.

He said this: The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation.

He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars.

Binoculars redirect incoming light, and you can “focus” them, IE you can set them to create an image that is in focus and not blurry.

He was making a comparison, is all. The brain is also focusing the light as the eyes come together as one unit.

He is mixing this term from optics with the meaning of focus that means to direct attention.

It is hard to believe neither of you have been able to work that out.

No, that is not how he used the term.

You're nitpicking. Light waves or waves of light.

Famously, no.

The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve,

The syntax fail, as is obvious to anyone who is not borderline illiterate, is that it reads that the waves of light are now a result of a striking of the optic nerve. Also that there is now an image IN the waves of light, which is of course not the case. Light is detected.

This sentence makes complete sense. He used simple language so the concept could be understood.

Technically, yes, but it doesn't change what he's trying to convey.

It neatly demonstrates his complete lack of even superficial knowledge – something he could have fixed with little effort, but never bothered to do.

It means that it takes stimulation from the other senses to desire to focus the eyes, which are not in full working order at birth

.

Once again you fail to understand what focusing means. You can fail to focus, and still see, for instance. It just means the image is a bit blurry. Apart from this, it obviously remains a simple claim that is not backed up in any way.

The nerve endings are not making direct contact. Show me where they do.

That is neither here nor there. They do not do so in other senses either. He just seems to have thought they did. He clearly did not even know the most basic things about the human senses

There is a relationship between the other senses and how a baby records the objects from which the experiences are derived.

Babies record objects?

The eyes are different in that they only see these objects that have become familiar through this relationship with the other senses.

How odd - because later on you seem to say that this is just how we first want to focus our eyes. Actually you have the brain focusing at that stage

There's nothing wrong with this explanation. That IS how the brain works.

But it does not explain anything: it merely describes a claim. It is just an unsupported opinion. You have no reason to believe it except for your desire to believe it.

He means there is a relationship between the other senses and the input into the brain, and what the eyes are able to see as a result of this relation. Get it?

But only in babies, right? And it is still not how "relation" is properly used, outside Lessanese.

He may not have been as technical as you wanted him to be, but the concept remains unmarred.

He confused himself with his own wooly prose

we see them because the objects are there to be seen.

Really? We see things because they are visible? Gosh!

This only occurs in infancy. Once the brain focuses due to the accumulation of sense experience, it stays focused.

…and now it is the BRAIN that “focuses”
Like your dad you happily blunder from one meaning of the word "focus to another, and stop off in between to make it mean something else entirely.

He understood the word "relation" and he used it correctly.

Not the way other people understand the term.

He explained that a relationship is recorded in the brain between the object and sense experience.

You obviously have your fathers way with words.

For example, the roar of a lion is recorded. The child soon desires to see the object of that relation. This desire or anticipation to see the source of the relation causes the eyes to focus. This occurs at a very young age.

He really didn’t, and it confused him rather a lot. Apparently neither do you. Or else you would not say that a recorded roar is a relation that can have an object of it.

It's not a matter of habit. It's a matter of incorrect classification because it is assumed the eyes work the same way as the other senses. If Lessans is right, then it is classified incorrectly.

Same difference – and just as wrong. We believe sight works the way it does because of overwhelming amounts of consilient evidence: evidence that we have gained in many different ways that all support the same model, and that could not all be observed if the model was not correct.

The claim needs to be taken seriously

Which is another claim. And also one I can see absolutely no reason at all to assume to be correct.

But I am glad you have come to the realization it is just a claim.

The chapter is available. I posted the whole thing for your convenience. It makes complete sense. You didn't even understand why he came to this conclusion. Let me reiterate: It has to do with words that are not symbolic of reality and why we can become conditioned to see what doesn't actually exist.

Yes, we had already established that is what is claimed. Now explain why it is true in a few simple sentences please, or else it is voodoo science… according to your own standard.

It all depends. Scientific evidence can even be airtight, but not in every case.

In your case it depends on whether it agrees with what you want to believe… every time.

I told you that his amazing analytical ability was why he was able to infer from his observations important facts that other people missed.

Unfortunately, he failed to include this amazing analysis and only talked about the resulting claims… so all we have is your word that he was an amazing analyzer.

I see no reason to assume you are correct about this. At all. Quite the opposite, in fact: judging from the confused way he expressed himself, this was not a particularly bright person at all.

After 5 years you still don't have a clue as to why conscience and sight works the way it does, and you want me to start all over again? I'll meet you halfway. Buy the ebook, and we'll discuss it in detail.

How odd! You seem unable to explain why we should believe conscience and sight work that way!

Voodoo science anyone?

Why would I buy the book? I think it is an atrocious, long-winded piece of drivel. And besides, you posted it online years ago to be downloaded for free. I have a copy somewhere on my portable drive.

I am lettiing this post go. My computer is erasing my answers. I have to call the technician tomorrow.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am lettiing this post go. My computer is erasing my answers. I have to call the technician tomorrow.

No, it's not. Like all other special needs internet cranks, you're just constitutionally incapable of figuring out message board quote functions.

[The Lone Ranger]

How is it that, in all these years, peacegirl still hasn't managed to learn how to use the "quote" feature?

The ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am lettiing this post go. My computer is erasing my answers.

It's not your puter zapping your answers. It's the ever vigilant Internet Checkers!

[Vivisectus]

[quote][QUOTE=peacegirl;1265670]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And if pigs CAN fly, then there is some other reason we never see them do it.

It is one example of evidence that sight works the way we think it does. Your response was: yeahbut if the book is correct then maybe something else is going on. But you can say that about just about anything.

He said this: The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation.

He said that somewhere else. I am referring to this:

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him.

He was making a comparison, is all. The brain is also focusing the light as the eyes come together as one unit.

the brain focuses light now? You are getting lost in the woolly prose.

No, that is not how he used the term.

He obviously is.

I am lettiing this post go. My computer is erasing my answers. I have to call the technician tomorrow.

Maybe he can explain the quote function to you while he is there. I wish him luck, patience and fortitude.

[Vivisectus]

The brain is also focusing the light as the eyes come together as one unit.

And I just realized you now have the brain focusing light?

But in your model of sight light does not need to be focused? It just needs to be there? Bringing light into focus is something inherently afferent.

take this example:



Light emanating from point A hits the eyes in a large area: wherever the lines from A hit the lens, basically. If we did not have a lens, it would carry on in a straight line, and hit a large area of the retina (almost all of it in fact) and the resulting image is blurry, out of focus. The light is also weaker as the same amount of light is spread over a wider area.

However, the lens redirects the light: all the light that hits the lens which comes from A is redirected on a. This means the image is not a large blur but a small sharply defined point.

This is what the word "focus" means when we use it to talk about sight. It means to redirect as much of the light reflected from a point onto as small an area of the retina as possible.

Whatever comes OUT of the retina in your version (sight rays or something? You never explained the mechanics of how sight is supposed to work) it most certainly is not light. We do not shoot light out of our eyes. So if there is ONE thing that most certainly does not happen it is "the brain focusing light", with or without eyes.

What does the word "focus" mean when you use it?

It cannot mean what it means in the normal sense. The light that hits the lens and is redirected is "old" light that had to travel. Why on earth would we need to focus light that may have left the object we are looking at years ago? Why does focusing it make an image not blurry when the light that actually matters is still lightyears away?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Moons of Jupiter looks airtight, but if Lessans is right (which is yet to be established), there is some other reason for the delay.

And if pigs CAN fly, then there is some other reason we never see them do it.

What do flying pigs have to do with this discovery? This man dealt with reality, not fantasy.

There was nothing wrong with that sentence.

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience ...

It then has children “seeing through” that accumulation.

That is a complete misstatement.

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him

He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars.

Binoculars redirect incoming light, and you can “focus” them, IE you can set them to create an image that is in focus and not blurry.

He was making a comparison, is all. The eyes, like binoculars, focus the light as they come together as a unit but it takes the infant's desire to see which sets the process in motion.

He is mixing this term from optics with the meaning of focus that means to direct attention.

It is hard to believe neither of you have been able to work that out.

That wasn't what he was doing. He used the definition correctly, not the one you are attributing to it. Focusing the light is exactly what he was talking about but instead of binoculars, it is the brain bringing the eyes together so they can focus the light.

You're nitpicking. Light waves or waves of light.

Famously, no.

The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve,

The syntax fail, as is obvious to anyone who is not borderline illiterate, is that it reads that the waves of light are now a result of a striking of the optic nerve. Also that there is now an image IN the waves of light, which is of course not the case. Light is detected.

This sentence makes complete sense. Image = wavelength/frequency. He used simple language so the concept could be understood.

Technically, yes, but it doesn't change what he's trying to convey.

It neatly demonstrates his complete lack of even superficial knowledge – something he could have fixed with little effort, but never bothered to do.

You are making him look like he doesn't have the knowledge to know what he's talking about. You're wrong. He did not need to understand astronomy to see that the eyes do not act like the other senses. You think you have this all figured out, which is the biggest stumbling block of all.

It means that it takes stimulation from the other senses to desire to focus the eyes, which are not in full working order at birth

.

Once again you fail to understand what focusing means. You can fail to focus, and still see, for instance. It just means the image is a bit blurry. Apart from this, it obviously remains a simple claim that is not backed up in any way.

The newborn can see but he cannot focus without sensory stimulation. The other senses are in full working order.

The nerve endings are not making direct contact. Show me where they do.

That is neither here nor there. They do not do so in other senses either. He just seems to have thought they did. He clearly did not even know the most basic things about the human senses

He knew more about human senses than you do. It is important to see whether his indirect observation has any validity. You are not even patient enough to see this through. You've already made up your mind, which is not the scientific way.

There is a relationship between the other senses and how a baby records the objects from which the experiences are derived.

Babies record objects?

He did not say babies record objects. This is what he said.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation

The eyes are different in that they only see these objects that have become familiar through this relationship with the other senses.

How odd - because later on you seem to say that this is just how we first want to focus our eyes. Actually you have the brain focusing at that stage

There's nothing wrong with this explanation. That IS how the brain works.

But it does not explain anything: it merely describes a claim. It is just an unsupported opinion. You have no reason to believe it except for your desire to believe it.

It's okay if it just explains or describes what's happening. There are ways to test his claim. It is not unfalsifiable. Proof doesn't always involve the scientific model of starting with a hypothesis. This is throwing you off.

He means there is a relationship between the other senses and the input into the brain, and what the eyes are able to see as a result of this relation. Get it?

But only in babies, right? And it is still not how "relation" is properly used, outside Lessanese.

The term "relation" is being used properly. There is no unusual meaning behind this word to make it unique to Lessans. It's just being used to describe a new concept.

He may not have been as technical as you wanted him to be, but the concept remains unmarred.

He confused himself with his own wooly prose

Wooly prose? You are in such judgment regarding his writing style that you can't see the forest from the trees. I can't talk to someone who is that superficial.

we see them because the objects are there to be seen.

Really? We see things because they are visible? Gosh!

Your sarcasm is underwhelming. The fact that we see the object rather than interpret the light is what this discussion is about.

This only occurs in infancy. Once the brain focuses due to the accumulation of sense experience, it stays focused.

…and now it is the BRAIN that “focuses”
Like your dad you happily blunder from one meaning of the word "focus to another, and stop off in between to make it mean something else entirely.

No, there is no blunder here. The brain begins to focus the eyes as the desire to see that which is being experienced by the other senses, comes into play.

He understood the word "relation" and he used it correctly.

Not the way other people understand the term.

Wrong. The word is being used according to the definition.

He explained that a relationship is recorded in the brain between the object and sense experience.

You obviously have your fathers way with words.

For example, the roar of a lion is recorded. The child soon desires to see the object of that relation. This desire or anticipation to see the source of the relation causes the eyes to focus. This occurs at a very young age.

He really didn’t, and it confused him rather a lot. Apparently neither do you. Or else you would not say that a recorded roar is a relation that can have an object of it.

You really need to reread that section. I cannot spoonfeed it to you just because you can't understand what is being said.

It's not a matter of habit. It's a matter of incorrect classification because it is assumed the eyes work the same way as the other senses. If Lessans is right, then it is classified incorrectly.

Same difference – and just as wrong. We believe sight works the way it does because of overwhelming amounts of consilient evidence: evidence that we have gained in many different ways that all support the same model, and that could not all be observed if the model was not correct.

I understand your concern, but sometimes what appears to be true, based on the circumstantial evidence, is extremely misleading.

The claim needs to be take[/B]n seriously

Which is another claim. And also one I can see absolutely no reason at all to assume to be correct.

But I am glad you have come to the realization it is just a claim.

It is a claim based on very careful observation. You are dismissing him as just another loon. To you, his claims are nothing more than someone saying pigs can fly. What a sad state of affairs.

The chapter is available. I posted the whole thing for your convenience. It makes complete sense. You didn't even understand why he came to this conclusion. Let me reiterate: It has to do with words that are not symbolic of reality and why we can become conditioned to see what doesn't actually exist.

Yes, we had already established that is what is claimed. Now explain why it is true in a few simple sentences please, or else it is voodoo science… according to your own standard.

I will not jeopardize this book by reducing it to a few sentences. You are going to have to meet me halfway, or we're done.

It all depends. Scientific evidence can even be airtight, but not in every case.

In your case it depends on whether it agrees with what you want to believe… every time.

I told you that his amazing analytical ability was why he was able to infer from his observations important facts that other people missed.

Unfortunately, he failed to include this amazing analysis and only talked about the resulting claims… so all we have is your word that he was an amazing analyzer.

You are being smug in your attitude. There are times when observation is correct and it trumps the scientific method which is just a tool.

I see no reason to assume you are correct about this. At all. Quite the opposite, in fact: judging from the confused way he expressed himself, this was not a particularly bright person at all.

After 5 years you still don't have a clue as to why conscience and sight works the way it does, and you want me to start all over again? I'll meet you halfway. Buy the ebook, and we'll discuss it in detail.

How odd! You seem unable to explain why we should believe conscience and sight work that way!

Voodoo science anyone?

Why would I buy the book? I think it is an atrocious, long-winded piece of drivel. And besides, you posted it online years ago to be downloaded for free. I have a copy somewhere on my portable drive.

If that's how you feel then there is nothing more to discuss Vivisectus. I'll engage with other people who will give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

What do flying pigs have to do with this discovery? This man dealt with reality, not fantasy.

Thats a good one! Reality!

What I mean is that you can say "something else could be going on" about anything at all. Including flying pigs. This appeal to future evidence as well as a future explanation is a classic fallacy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was nothing wrong with this statement.

You are such a despicable weasel - the statement I was referring to was a different one:

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

That wasn't what he was doing. He used the definition correctly, not the one you are attributing to it.
Focusing the light is exactly what he was talking about but instead of binoculars, it is the brain focusing the eyes.

So the brain is focusing incoming light, only outwards?

I love how you just get more and more trapped in your own muddles.

This sentence makes complete sense. He used simple language so the concept could be understood.

It is so splintered it reads as if the striking of the optic nerve causes the waves of light to come in.

You are making him look like he doesn't have the knowledge to know what he's talking about. This is lie. He did not need to understand astronomy to see that the eyes do not act like the other senses. You think you have this all figured out, which is the biggest stumbling block of all.

No, the awful mess he makes of even simple terms demonstrates he lacked even superficial knowledge about the fields he was making sweeping claims about. Don't shoot the messenger!

He knew more about human senses than you do. It is important to see whether his indirect observation has any validity. You are not even patient enough to see this through. You've already made up your mind, which is not the scientific way.

The scientific way is to test a hypothesis through observation. We have done this, in lots of different ways, and it proves him wrong. Besides: you do not believe in science. You only just stated that even large amounts of very strong consilient evidence does not impress you at all if it contradicts what you want to believe.

He did not say babies record objects. This is what he said.

Nope, you did, as you were getting more and more entangled in the muddle of your book and your own reactions to the book.

It's okay if it just explains or describes what's happening. Sometimes proof comes later. It doesn't come from the scientific model of starting with a hypothesis, which is throwing you off.

Sure - you can just make a claim and leave it at that. And then people just say "prove it!" and when you fail to do so they ignore you. Because if I claim the tooth fairy exists, you say "sez you!" unless I have some way to back up that claim. Glad to see you have realized this book has absolutely nothing to do with science though.

Wooly prose? You are in such judgment, you can't see the forest from the trees. I can't talk to someone who is not aware of his myopia.

You do the same thing. You get lost in your own bafflegab half the time. It is highly amusing.

Your sarcasm is underwhelming. The fact that we see the object rather than interpret the light is what this discussion is about.

You mean the claim. The unsupported, disproven claim for which neither mechanism nor evidence has ever been discovered. fact indeed.

No, there is no blunder here. The brain begins to focus the eyes as the desire to see that which is being experienced by the other senses, comes into play.

Well, then it should be easy for you to look at my other post and then tell me what "focus" means, where your idea is concerned!

I can't wait! It is sure to contain lots of funny bafflegab and silly waffle.

You really need to reread that section. I cannot spoonfeed it to you just because you can't understand what is being said.

you are such a weasel. I was referring to your statement.

I understand your concern, but sometimes what appears to be true, based on the circumstantial evidence, is extremely misleading.

Not what circumstantial evidence means, as has been explained to you. Itis strong evidence, from different approaches, and the observations simply could not happen if you were right.

It is a claim based on very careful observation. You are dismissing him as just another loon. To you, his claims are nothing more than someone saying pigs can fly. What a sad state of affairs.

Not true. What happened is that you made a claim. I then checked a few things: is the optic nerve afferent? Is there a difference between what a camera "sees" and what we observe with the naked eye? How do we explain the moons of Jupiter?

And I found that what we observe does not match what you claim.

I will not jeopardize this book by reducing it to a few sentences. You are going to have to meet me halfway, or we're done.

double standard! You say that if scientists say that, they are voodoo scientists!

You are being smug in your attitude. There are times when observation is correct and it trumps the scientific method in how truth is found. You don't get it and I don't know why I'm even trying.

We then need to check if the "observation" (claim) is correct. Or else is remains just that: a claim. This one is not even a claim anymore: it is a disproven one.

If that's how you feel then there is nothing more to discuss Vivisectus. I'll engage with other people who will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Time to weasel out again, wait for a while, reset, and start over huh? As you always do?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And I just realized you now have the brain focusing light?

But in your model of sight light does not need to be focused? It just needs to be there? Bringing light into focus is something inherently afferent.

take this example:



Light emanating from point A hits the eyes in a large area: wherever the lines from A hit the lens, basically. If we did not have a lens, it would carry on in a straight line, and hit a large area of the retina (almost all of it in fact) and the resulting image is blurry, out of focus. The light is also weaker as the same amount of light is spread over a wider area.

However, the lens redirects the light: all the light that hits the lens which comes from A is redirected on a. This means the image is not a large blur but a small sharply defined point.

This is what the word "focus" means when we use it to talk about sight. It means to redirect as much of the light reflected from a point onto as small an area of the retina as possible.

Whatever comes OUT of the retina in your version (sight rays or something? You never explained the mechanics of how sight is supposed to work) it most certainly is not light. We do not shoot light out of our eyes. So if there is ONE thing that most certainly does not happen it is "the brain focusing light", with or without eyes.

Whatever comes out of the retina? What are you talking about? The brain forces the eyes to work together so that they CAN focus the light. You are very confused about this model. There is no shooting light out of the eyes. Optics works in the same way.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What does the word "focus" mean when you use it?

It cannot mean what it means in the normal sense. The light that hits the lens and is redirected is "old" light that had to travel. Why on earth would we need to focus light that may have left the object we are looking at years ago? Why does focusing it make an image not blurry when the light that actually matters is still lightyears away?

You've lost me.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain forces the eyes to work together so that they CAN focus the light.

So the eyes work together to focus the light?

How do they work together to do this?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever comes out of the retina? What are you talking about? The brain forces the eyes to work together so that they CAN focus the light. You are very confused about this model. There is no shooting light out of the eyes. Optics works in the same way.

You can't have it both ways. The word "efferent" means that something (typically neural impulses) is going from the Central Nervous System outward.

If, as you keep insisting, sight is efferent, then by definition that means something is going from the brain and eyes outward, toward the objects we see.





I note, by the way, that you have yet to be able to identify a single difference between an afferent neuron in the visual pathway (which contains only afferent neurons, by the way; there are no efferent neurons) and an afferent neuron in some other part of the body.




P.S.: Is the "quote" function really that hard to understand? Kindergarteners can use it; why can't you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

What do flying pigs have to do with this discovery? This man dealt with reality, not fantasy.

Thats a good one! Reality!

Yes, reality.

What I mean is that you can say "something else could be going on" about anything at all. Including flying pigs. This appeal to future evidence as well as a future explanation is a classic fallacy.

No it is not. A person can create a formula on how to build a bridge on paper which involves difficult math relations, but it doesn't prove itself empirically until it is applied. The mathematician says this will hold the bridge up, but people say you're wrong. He may never be able to build the bridge because they say this is an appeal to future evidence. How else can the proof be established other than an appeal to future evidence?
It could be evidenced on a small scale, but it has to be applied to a real life situation nevertheless.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was nothing wrong with this statement.

You are such a despicable weasel - the statement I was referring to was a different one:

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him.

You misinterpreted what he said.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

That wasn't what he was doing. He used the definition correctly, not the one you are attributing to it.
Focusing the light is exactly what he was talking about but instead of binoculars, it is the brain focusing the eyes.

So the brain is focusing incoming light, only outwards?

I love how you just get more and more trapped in your own muddles.

I am not getting trapped in any muddle; you are.

This sentence makes complete sense. He used simple language so the concept could be understood.

It is so splintered it reads as if the striking of the optic nerve causes the waves of light to come in.

It is theorized that impulses coming from the optic nerve are interpreted as an image in the brain. That's all you need to understand from that statement.

You are making him look like he doesn't have the knowledge to know what he's talking about. This is lie. He did not need to understand astronomy to see that the eyes do not act like the other senses. You think you have this all figured out, which is the biggest stumbling block of all.

No, the awful mess he makes of even simple terms demonstrates he lacked even superficial knowledge about the fields he was making sweeping claims about. Don't shoot the messenger!

Actually, if he was in the field he probably would not have thought outside of the box. He had to come to this finding indirectly, so don't accuse the man just because he was the dark horse in the race.

He knew more about human senses than you do. It is important to see whether his indirect observation has any validity. You are not even patient enough to see this through. You've already made up your mind, which is not the scientific way.

The scientific way is to test a hypothesis through observation. We have done this, in lots of different ways, and it proves him wrong. Besides: you do not believe in science. You only just stated that even large amounts of very strong consilient evidence does not impress you at all if it contradicts what you want to believe.

That is because I believe his observations are accurate. No one has proved that they aren't, even those weak experiments with dogs.

He did not say babies record objects. This is what he said.

Nope, you did, as you were getting more and more entangled in the muddle of your book and your own reactions to the book.

I may not have worded it perfectly, but that's not his writing. Let's stick with what is in the book.

It's okay if it just explains or describes what's happening. Sometimes proof comes later. It doesn't come from the scientific model of starting with a hypothesis, which is throwing you off.

Sure - you can just make a claim and leave it at that. And then people just say "prove it!" and when you fail to do so they ignore you. Because if I claim the tooth fairy exists, you say "sez you!" unless I have some way to back up that claim. Glad to see you have realized this book has absolutely nothing to do with science though.

If someone said to me pigs fly, I wouldn't believe it unless I saw it with my own eyes. This is quite different from what he is claiming. His claims come from real true observations that can be tested. I've never seen a test to determine if pigs can fly.

Wooly prose? You are in such judgment, you can't see the forest from the trees. I can't talk to someone who is not aware of his myopia.

You do the same thing. You get lost in your own bafflegab half the time. It is highly amusing.

I don't know how I got into this subject again. It serves no purpose.

Your sarcasm is underwhelming. The fact that we see the object rather than interpret the light is what this discussion is about.

You mean the claim. The unsupported, disproven claim for which neither mechanism nor evidence has ever been discovered. fact indeed.

No, there is no blunder here. The brain begins to focus the eyes as the desire to see that which is being experienced by the other senses, comes into play.

Well, then it should be easy for you to look at my other post and then tell me what "focus" means, where your idea is concerned!

I can't wait! It is sure to contain lots of funny bafflegab and silly waffle.

Nope, I was clear enough in my last post.

You really need to reread that section. I cannot spoonfeed it to you just because you can't understand what is being said.

you are such a weasel. I was referring to your statement.

I understand your concern, but sometimes what appears to be true, based on the circumstantial evidence, is extremely misleading.

Not what circumstantial evidence means, as has been explained to you. Itis strong evidence, from different approaches, and the observations simply could not happen if you were right.

I understand that there is strong evidence, from different approaches, but the jury is still out.

It is a claim based on very careful observation. You are dismissing him as just another loon. To you, his claims are nothing more than someone saying pigs can fly. What a sad state of affairs.

Not true. What happened is that you made a claim. I then checked a few things: is the optic nerve afferent? Is there a difference between what a camera "sees" and what we observe with the naked eye? How do we explain the moons of Jupiter?

And I found that what we observe does not match what you claim.

I understand, but this is not a closed case just because these things don't match up. BTW, what cameras see and what we observe with the naked eye are the same, which is expected.

I will not jeopardize this book by reducing it to a few sentences. You are going to have to meet me halfway, or we're done.

double standard! You say that if scientists say that, they are voodoo scientists!

I never used the words voodoo and scientist in the same sentence.

You are being smug in your attitude. There are times when observation is correct and it trumps the scientific method in how truth is found. You don't get it and I don't know why I'm even trying.

We then need to check if the "observation" (claim) is correct. Or else is remains just that: a claim. This one is not even a claim anymore: it is a disproven one.

Maybe in your mind it is, but you're not the last word.

If that's how you feel then there is nothing more to discuss Vivisectus. I'll engage with other people who will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Time to weasel out again, wait for a while, reset, and start over huh? As you always do?[/QUOTE]

My hope was that we could discuss Lessans' first discovery. GdB was only interested in defending compatibilism. No one else seems interested yet this knowledge, when applied, has the power to change our world for the better. The discussion regarding the eyes is just a repetition and there really is nothing more to discuss.

[Vivisectus]

Yes, reality.

Just not one for which we can detect any evidence. If only we had a word for that!

What I mean is that you can say "something else could be going on" about anything at all. Including flying pigs. This appeal to future evidence as well as a future explanation is a classic fallacy.

No it is not. A person can create a formula on how to build a bridge on paper which involves difficult math relations,

I love how you have internalized Lessanese weird-speak and now use it in your responses. I may try to use it myself later.

but it doesn't prove itself empirically until it is applied. The mathematician says this will hold the bridge up, but people say you're wrong. He may never be able to build the bridge because they say this is an appeal to future evidence.

But here it is the other way around: we have someone saying

"there is no way a bridge made out of this material can stand!"

Then someone points at the bridge, right there.

Then the other person responds "something else must be going on!"

How else can the proof be established other than an appeal to future evidence?

It is called science. You create a hypothesis: in this case, sight is instant.

Then we find ways to test this. For instance, we can say "We know cameras record light, which is NOT instant. So let's see if there is a difference between what the naked eye sees and what a camera sees in situations where the light has to travel quite a bit!"

And guess what? There isn't! Hence we conclude that the hypothesis is wrong.

It could be evidenced on a small scale, but it has to be applied to a real life situation nevertheless.

We have evidence. Plenty of it. I just described some.

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him.

You misinterpreted what he said.


It is not a matter of interpretation.

I am not getting trapped in any muddle; you are.



You and the book both talk about focusing as something that happens outwards - you focus out to see something. And yet you talk about focusing light. Which is something that by definition happens inwards.

It is theorized that impulses coming from the optic nerve are interpreted as an image in the brain. That's all you need to understand from that statement.

Did you notice that even in a short passage, we have had to explain that while he said one thing, he meant something else several times?

Actually, if he was in the field he probably would not have thought outside of the box. He had to come to this finding indirectly, so don't accuse the man just because he was the dark horse in the race.

Oh, I am not complaining that he was not an expert. What I find so funny is that he did not even know the most superficial basics.

It was this profound ignorance that allowed him to not notice how stupid his claim was.

also, @ dark horse in the race. Was someone looking the dark horse in the mouth after the stable door had fled?

The scientific way is to test a hypothesis through observation. We have done this, in lots of different ways, and it proves him wrong. Besides: you do not believe in science. You only just stated that even large amounts of very strong consilient evidence does not impress you at all if it contradicts what you want to believe.

That is because I believe his observations are accurate. No one has proved that they aren't, even those weak experiments with dogs.



You believe something despite evidence to the contrary, yes. And they HAVE proved that he was wrong. Over and over.

He did not say babies record objects. This is what he said.

I may not have worded it perfectly, but that's not his writing. Let's stick with what is in the book.

Do we have to? Some of the funniest moments in this thread happen when you try to defend the clearly mistaken stuff in the book and end up saying weird stuff like what I just pointed out.

If someone said to me pigs fly, I wouldn't believe it unless I saw it with my own eyes. This is quite different from what he is claiming. His claims come from real true observations that can be tested. I've never seen a test to determine if pigs can fly.

Sure you have: take a pig. Throw it off a cliff.

Same as you have seen us testing efferent sight. It is just that you cannot accept the results.

I understand that there is strong evidence, from different approaches, but the jury is still out.

Only in as much as the jury is still out about the aerodynamic qualities of pigs: IE pretty much everything we know about how things work has to be wrong,

I understand, but this is not a closed case just because these things don't match up. BTW, what cameras see and what we observe with the naked eye are the same, which is expected. [/QUOTE]

Cameras just detect light, which has to travel, so there will be a delay. Eyes supposedly do something else.

Unless you want to explain efferent photography

And the case is closed in the same way that the case is closed on flying pigs. We would have to be wrong about everything and find ways to explain so many observations that rule it out that I cannot even imagine where we would begin! We touched on quite a few of them in this thread.

I will not jeopardize this book by reducing it to a few sentences. You are going to have to meet me halfway, or we're done.

I never used the words voodoo and scientist in the same sentence.

Weasel. You said that a way to spot voodoo science is to look for people who cannot explain their science in a few simple sentences.

Maybe in your mind it is, but you're not the last word.

Mine, and quite literally everyone's except you. And you have to believe some rather odd things in order to retain your belief, such as the efferent camera

Time to weasel out again, wait for a while, reset, and start over huh? As you always do?

My hope was that we could discuss Lessans' first discovery. GdB was only interested in defending compatibilism. No one else seems interested yet this knowledge, when applied, has the power to change our world for the better. The discussion regarding the eyes is just a repetition and there really is nothing more to discuss.

Weasel out, change the subject, and then come back with the exact same stuff that gets comprehensibly demolished every time. You do this every time. The funny part is that you then go on to accuse other people of having closed minds without the slightest hint that you are aware of how ironic that is.

[Vivisectus]

Whatever comes out of the retina? What are you talking about? The brain forces the eyes to work together so that they CAN focus the light. You are very confused about this model. There is no shooting light out of the eyes. Optics works in the same way.

Meaningless waffle. The brain forces the eyes to work together so they can focus the light? Can you explain this? Better yet, draw a diagram?

And why is focusing of light - an afferent process - required?

And since the light from the object just appears at the retina according to you, then why is a lens even required? Why is light being focused from the lens to a small spot on the retina? THAT light had to travel... and is light that WAS at the object a small amount of time ago.

You see, focusing makes no sense in your model.

You've lost me.

That is because you are talking nonsense. When I ask you to explain yourself in any kind of detail you get all confused.

[The Lone Ranger]

Ah, remember how she spent days arguing that cameras -- unlike eyes -- don't see in "real time," because they don't have brains? Even as people pointed out that this would necessarily mean that we could see things (like supernovae, for instance) that could not be photographed, she stoutly insisted that cameras don't see in real time, but eyes do.

Then, after she'd spent several pages insisting that cameras see in delayed time, unlike the eyes, and claiming that anyone who didn't accept this was being "close-minded" and/or was too stupid to understand Lessans' "proof" of this -- she suddenly switched positions.

Then she spent several pages vehemently denying that she'd ever claimed that cameras see in delayed time -- despite the fact that she'd been doing exactly that for the past several pages and insulting anyone and everyone who dared to point out that this was crazy talk.


Ah, good times!

[Vivisectus]

Your digital camera is, simply put, a highly specialized collection of tiny solar generators. Each tiny sensor, one for each pixel in your image, turns photons into electrical currents. The more photons, the brighter the light, the stronger the current and the lighter the pixel.

So how come we can SEE a moon of Jupiter rise and take a photo of it at the same time? We should not be able to photograph it for some considerable time: Jupiter is between 20 and 40 light minutes away, depending on where it is in it's orbit.

There we go: we have tested your idea empirically. Objections?

[Ari]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Each tiny sensor, one for each pixel in your image,

Minor correction, most CMOS sensors have 4 sensor sites per pixel, 2 green filtered, 1 blue and 1 red. Since the sensor site only sees in intensity the colors are filtered and then each site is combined to make a single colored pixel.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Ah, remember how she spent days arguing that cameras -- unlike eyes -- don't see in "real time," because they don't have brains? Even as people pointed out that this would necessarily mean that we could see things (like supernovae, for instance) that could not be photographed, she stoutly insisted that cameras don't see in real time, but eyes do.

Then, after she'd spent several pages insisting that cameras see in delayed time, unlike the eyes, and claiming that anyone who didn't accept this was being "close-minded" and/or was too stupid to understand Lessans' "proof" of this -- she suddenly switched positions.

Then she spent several pages vehemently denying that she'd ever claimed that cameras see in delayed time -- despite the fact that she'd been doing exactly that for the past several pages and insulting anyone and everyone who dared to point out that this was crazy talk.


Ah, good times!

That was when I was trying to figure all of the questions being thrown at me. Just because I sometimes contradicted myself still doesn't mean his claim has a fundamental flaw in it. I also waffled and weaseled. So what. Doesn't mean a thing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was when I was trying to figure all of the questions being thrown at me.

You mean before you learned to just ignore them or lie about having answered them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because I sometimes contradicted myself still doesn't mean his claim has a fundamental flaw in it.

But you're still contradicting yourself, and are unable to explain these ideas without contradicting yourself, and that does mean the ideas are flawed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I also waffled and weaseled.

You're still waffling and weaseling. It's all you've ever done here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what. Doesn't mean a thing.

It means you're fundamentally dishonest and incapable of being reasonable.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was when I was trying to figure all of the questions being thrown at me. Just because I sometimes contradicted myself still doesn't mean his claim has a fundamental flaw in it. I also waffled and weaseled. So what. Doesn't mean a thing.

It's rather telling that, to you, blatant lying "[d]oesn't mean a thing".

[Angakuk]

To be fair, it may be true that peacegirl never used the phrase "voodoo science" That honor belongs to Louis Savain. Peacegirl is just guilty by association because she has cited him, frequently.