A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The details are very interesting, and I have to read it very carefully in order to ask intelligent questions.

TRANSLATION: It's way over my head, and all that sciency stuff is hard. Besides, it shows that Daddy was nuts. I prefer to believe what Daddy said.

You don't even need to hurt your brain reading it, peacegirl. Here's the Reader's Digest version, also posted by TLR:

The entire point that people have been trying to make to you with respect to how sight works is that the eye (or a camera) can form an image (and relay it to the brain) only if it is receiving light that was either reflected from or emitted by the object in question.

So if you place a camera such that the lens of the camera is not receiving light that is reflected from the object, it can't form an image of the object -- it doesn't matter how much light is bathing the object in question.

So of course you can't take a picture of an object if the camera is facing away from the object and can't receive light reflected from or emitted by it. This is the same reason why you can't see anything behind you -- it doesn't matter how much light the object is emitting or reflecting, if the light can't enter your eye, then you can't see it.


That's the entire point of what everyone has been trying to tell you about how vision works. You can't see anything unless light that is reflected from or emitted by the object in question is entering your eye. That light is then transduced by the retinal cells into neural impulses that are relayed by the optic nerve to the brain for interpretation.

That's it. End of story. Lessans was wrong. He was more than wrong, since he never actually offered a theory. His writings on vision and light are incoherent.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I notice that his obituary makes no mention of his having been a mathematician, or a philosopher.

The obituary does, however, note that Mr. Lessans was a retired salesman. The fruit didn't fall far from the tree in this instance.

(On a much cooler note, he was a championship caliber pool player with a special affinity for 9-ball, which is quite badass.)

Originally Posted by Angakuk

However, if Lessans said it was so, then it must be so.

Yep, that's basically it. The "evidence," such as it is, lies in peacegirl's contentions that (1) if Mr. Lessans were wrong, he would have acknowledged it, and (2) it is impossible that Mr. Lessans was incorrect but simply didn't know it. That is indeed the functional equivalent of "if Lessans said it was so, then it must be so."

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Will you please stop saying such things?

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, that's not how science works! It's dishonest to keep saying that it is.

Birds fly, fish swim and dishonest people say dishonest things. You might as well try telling a Republican legislator to refrain from diapering up and supporting the sex industry through direct cash involvement. Positing the existence of a Queen of Science whose severe Hysterical Lady Syndrome distorts the whole of scientific knowledge is rather tame compared to some of the other pants-on-fire contentions we've seen in this here thread.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Birds fly, fish swim

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by Awareness

Retaliate is for chicken gladiators

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Kael

............

[Goliath]

Hmmm....the thread needs more Michali.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

Lessans was a half-wit.

You overestimate him again.

--J.D.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I am not sure how the brain is able to do this except to say that an electric current from the stimulation of the other senses causes the brain to awaken (so to speak) and focus the eyes on the outside world. Until this is confirmed, there is no point in asking the mechanics of how this occurs. People wouldn't take it seriously.

In that case there is indeed no point in having any discussion of Lessans' "theory of sight", because none of it is going to be confirmed. It is not going to be be confirmed because it is not true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are books that have no punctuation and are considered classics, so that's BS. If you knew that this book was valid, you would read it even if it was written in crayon on a rooftop.

Possibly, or I might just wait for the movie.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does, and if you try to understand why, you will see that he is right.

I sincerely doubt that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when words of critical judgment as well as standards of beauty and ugliness are removed from the environment, no child will grow up to have an inferiority complex or feel less worthy than anyone else.

Nor does it take a rocket scientist to point out that, even if all the words that are currently in use for expressing critical judgements are taken out of circulation, people will still make critical judgements. They will simply find new words to express those judgements. This is what people do.

There you have it, argument and counter-argument. Neither of us has introduced anything resembling actual evidence, but that is alright because all that matters is that my argument is at least as sound as yours. Now, if you somehow managed to introduce some actual evidence to support your argument then I would have to do same. If I fail to offer such evidence then I am screwed.

Throughout this thread there are numerous instances where this has taken place. In each case, however, it has been Lessans critics who have introduced evidence and consequently it has been you and Lessans who have received the screwing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want further proof, more empirical studies need to be done, but you don't throw his observations out as if they are inaccurate, especially when the claims are as farreaching as these.

We are, however, quite at liberty to throw out his observations as if they were inaccurate when they are, in fact, inaccurate, which is most of the time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just wonder if we found out that the eyes are efferent, would this change anything? Just asking.

I suppose it would make a difference, were such the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Lessans said it was so, does not make it so, which is true. The only thing that counts is whether his observations were spot on. Suspending disbelief would at the very least allow you to read the rest of the book without the need to confront him at every turn. It would also give you a glimpse of what the new world will look like, if he turns out to be right.

The fact that most of his observations are not spot-on means that we are free to ignore most of what he has to say.

[Vivisectus]

If Lessans said it was so, does not make it so, which is true. The only thing that counts is whether his observations were spot on. Suspending disbelief would at the very least allow you to read the rest of the book without the need to confront him at every turn. It would also give you a glimpse of what the new world will look like, if he turns out to be right.

The only problem is that once you have examined the work in a sympathetic frame of mind, and then go back to examine it critically, it turns out that it starts with a fallacy (that which happened has happened and therefor had to happen) - continues on to a tripod that has a leg missing (there is no compelling reason to believe that blame is a requirement for justification and that without justification there can be no unprovoked harmful intent) and then drifts off into more and more eccentric ideas - all of them unsupported and in the case of the theory of sight, physically impossible.

There is a good reason the revolution never happened. This is because these ideas are those of an eccentric with philosophical delusions of grandeur. He may have been a quiet man in daily life, but his ideas were far from humble. He severely overestimated his own abilities, and was unable to spot the fatal flaws in his flights of fancy.

You say they laughed at Mendel too, but they laugh at people who think the earth is flat too. For every Mendel there must be a thousand crackpots, all claiming to hold the key to universal happiness, if only the world would listen to what they say.

[Vivisectus]

If Lessans said it was so, does not make it so, which is true. The only thing that counts is whether his observations were spot on. Suspending disbelief would at the very least allow you to read the rest of the book without the need to confront him at every turn. It would also give you a glimpse of what the new world will look like, if he turns out to be right.

The only problem is that once you have examined the work in a sympathetic frame of mind, and then go back to examine it critically, it turns out that it starts with a fallacy (that which happened has happened and therefor had to happen) - continues on to a tripod that has a leg missing (there is no compelling reason to believe that blame is a requirement for justification and that without justification there can be no unprovoked harmful intent) and then drifts off into more and more eccentric ideas - all of them unsupported and in the case of the theory of sight, physically impossible.

There is a good reason the revolution never happened. This is because these ideas are those of an eccentric with philosophical delusions of grandeur. He may have been a quiet man in daily life, but his ideas were far from humble. He severely overestimated his own abilities, and was unable to spot the fatal flaws in his flights of fancy.

You say they laughed at Mendel too, but they laugh at people who think the earth is flat too. For every Mendel there must be a thousand crackpots, all claiming to hold the key to universal happiness, if only the world would listen to what they say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to use the quote function, maybe it's not the most efficient way, but at least I'm letting people know who is doing the talking.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Reeeaaaallllyyyy?? I am surprised you can say that with a straight face. Please examine this, which was in your very last response to me, and tell me whether it supports your claim or not.

No, it doesn't support the claim that I am using the quote function in the way you expect, but that does not mean I am not using the quote function in a way that people still get who is talking. I could jumble everything up and no one would know who is talking to whom, but people are getting it, I hope. Now, if I accidentally put the wrong name in the quotes, that could be a problem. But that could happen to anybody, especially if they're posting a lot.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I said that because he does not let the idea stand for itself and instead sets himself up as a benefactor of mankind. A person who thinks he is a benefactor of mankind likely has a problem with self-aggrandizement.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So according to you any person who had to explain his findings in as much detail as possible has a problem with self-aggrandizement. I don't agree.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

NO. A person who says or thinks he is a benefactor of mankind likely has a problem with self-aggrandizement. [A person who had to explain his findings in as much detail as possible] is not the same as [a person who says or thinks he is a benefactor of mankind]. These are not synonymous concepts at all, and to restate my idea in this way shows either that you can't read or that you are dishonestly trying to attribute an idea to me that is not mine.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

You are coming to an incorrect conclusion about this man. He was just showing that predicting an eclipse is not the same as giving something to mankind and not having the exact coordinates as to when the transition will occur. You keep telling me he had a problem with self-aggrandizement, and I am telling you he was humble.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

We are convinced that the current state of knowledge is complete to a point that the alternative you present is unworkable. You have not provided any reason that the current state of knowledge has gaps, or that your alternative better explains what we already know.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you keep saying, but if his knowledge prevents people from feeling as if they are inferior productions of the human race, I think that's a pretty big reason.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

There is no gap in the scientific knowledge for [preventing people from feeling as if they are inferior productions] in our understanding of sight/light. No scientist is out there wondering why our understanding of sight/light does not explain the idea in brackets.

Of course they're not. It hasn't even entered their minds because they don't see the connection. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

That is because they don't have anything to do with each other. You are moving on to the whole words part of his argument, before verifying that he has the sight/light part down. If he has the sight/light part wrong, then we don't even get to the way he thinks words work. He's just wrong.

I am showing you why the knowledge that the eyes are not a sense organ is important in terms of the implications. It should be obvious by now that in order to be taken seriously, there needs to be more proof, but that does not make him wrong wildernesse.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I think it is clear that my goal in this conversation is to get this thread to 100 pages.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is this your goal? I'm laughing.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I enjoy things that are absurd, and this thread is full of absurdity.

It feels that way because there is a lot controversy (I'm sure people will say there is no controversy; Lessans is wrong, period). Regardless of whether people will ever believe that this major work is valid and sound, this thread is definitely more entertaining and therapeutic for the brain than doing cross word puzzles.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether it's an ad hom attack or not, I don't really care. Calling me a liar and dishonest for whatever reason is not true because that's not who I am. I might not be clear in explaining something, but I am not being deceitful intentionally.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Saying so doesn't make it so. If you aren't being intentionally dishonest, I guess that leaves you with some kind of reading comprehension problem. Otherwise, the way you respond to people just doesn't make any sense at all. Of course, you could be a really, really, really good troll, but I don't think that is the simplest explanation. So, I admit I could be wrong about you being stupid, too.

Did you ever think that it could be you who has the problem communicating? Regardless, I don't go around calling you stupid, a troll, or dishonest because that would not be accurate. That's an important distinction that is made in the book regarding words (stupid, uneducated, unintelligent, ugly, etc.) that do not accurately symbolize reality and do a lot of harm in damaging self-esteem, especially when we are children.

Well thank you. At least I won't be walking around feeling stupid because wildernesse said so.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I can't believe you did this in the same thread where you said there was evidence of you trying to use the quote function so that at least you were letting people know who was talking. Really, your troll quotient is rising substantially.

I did make mistakes in this thread. I think I put my name where yours should have been and vice versa. But I didn't do it intentionally, so my troll quotient should be coming down precipitously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It says that you feel justified in your responses: You either feel justified in your analysis of me, or you feel that you paid for your mistake by admitting that I'm not stupid and making an apology of sorts.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Actually, I did not admit that [peacegirl is not stupid]. All I said was it is possible that you are a troll and do not have a reading comprehension problem.

You really believe I'm doing this on purpose (definition of troll), so you feel justified in calling me a troll. Your conscience is working just the way it was designed to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still say it wasn't about my being dishonest. It was about misunderstanding what you meant by your words.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Ok, so you have a reading comprehension problem. Thanks for letting us know.

As I said earlier, maybe I do have a reading comprehension problem, or maybe the way you explain yourself is the problem. Whatever! Once again, we're getting way off track and I'm spending a lot of wasted time talking about me instead of the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That goes back to Lessans' observations. And I said many times that someone who is a sniper might not look like he has a justification, but if you examine his background you will find rage that manifests in this way. It is an indirect retaliatory response. Lessans writes:

In order to hurt another, man must be able to derive
some satisfaction from this, which means that he was previously hurt
and is justified to retaliate, or else he knows, absolutely and positively,
that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they
knew.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

So, you can't give me a list of reasons. What you quoted from the book is just an assertion that a person was justified by retaliation or knows he would be blamed. I think that is stupid, because people can cause hurt without retaliating and because I do not think that the conscience works the way that Lessans thinks at all.

I know you don't, and no one else does either, but that doesn't make him wrong. As I mentioned many times, if this was so easy it would have been discovered a long time ago. So instead of just rejecting his claims outright, step back as a good scientist does (although I know you're not a scientist) and keep an open mind before shutting the door.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's not what you said. You said that if something is valuable people will listen regardless of whether the person presenting the information has higher order thinking skills. Now you're saying something different. You're saying that some people will not take me seriously because of these so-called characteristics.

I am not getting defensive. I just want clarity and I want to respond appropriately. If you call me a liar, I am going to tell you I'm not a liar, and if this causes a problem in reaching my ultimate goal of discussing these ideas productively, then so be it. I don't see where my appropriate response would delay a productive discussion except for the fact that we are getting completely off track, and have been for many pages now.

I'm not sure what your motive is. Maybe it's to try to bring out something in me that people would use to judge my sincerity or capabilities. Or maybe you really do believe I have a communication problem and you are trying to help me (which I doubt). Or maybe it's just for entertainment value. I don't think it's that we have competing values. We all want the same thing in life: happiness, joy, peace, love, and purpose.

I will, but probably never again through a forum of this type.

It means that he was very capable of figuring out all sorts of difficult math problems. The math problem he gave in the beginning of the book (although some people say that this isn't math) where the professor said that the problem could not be done, was done and I have the correct answer in a folder he left me.


* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

"30 years of analysis" and she still cannot account for all of the errors people have been pointing out to her for about ten years.

EPIC FAIL right there.

--J.D.

Do you see what you're doing Doc? You are setting up a syllogism that because I've been online for 8 years, that he must have been wrong. The premise is false, therefore your conclusions is also false, but you keep using it as if this observation means something. This is a case where an observation is categorically false.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Awareness

Has it ever occurred to you that Peacegirl could have just the opposite meaning of what her name claims to be.

So much effort....................Or I am wrong.

I realize that, and I'm trying to decipher between the two. I like to play too, but not at the expense of getting this knowledge to the right people. I am also trying to keep my cool. I don't want high blood pressure on account of this thread.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see what you're doing Doc? You are setting up a syllogism that because I've been online for 8 years, that he must have been wrong. The premise is false, therefore your conclusions is also false, but you keep using it as if this observation means something. This is a case where an observation is categorically false.

No, he is doing nothing of the kind. This is just more of your rank dishonestly. He is manifestly not saying that because you've been online for eight years, therefore you must be wrong. That would be ridiculous. He's saying, very plainly so that only a dishonest person could ignore or twist is meaning, that in all the years you've been spouting this rubbish online, you are still unable to account for all the errors that people repeatedly keep pointing out to you. Which, of course, is true. The fact that you ignored The Lone Ranger's thread is very telling. Also very telling is that you thanked him for his "detailed" analysis to which you did not bother responding, while earlier dismissing the same analysis as "sketchy." So it's "detailed" and "sketchy" at the same time? Well, I suppose this is on par with your agreeing with the Lone Ranger that light contains information while maintaining that light does not contain information.

Oh, and about those cameras. Still waiting to know how you think they work. When I take a photo of a tree, since you say I'm taking a photo of the object itself and not the light reflected by the object, does that mean the tree uproots itself, crawls into the less and physically presses itself against the film? Or what?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Try to take a picture with a camera that is directly in line with an object but slightly in front of it, and see if you get any information about said object. You should get some information if it's in the light, correct? That would be a valid experiment.

Just to hammer home the point, this "experiment" has been done many, many, many times. Practically everyone who has ever taken a photograph has performed it.

If you're facing a light source (say, the Sun, for example) and you're pointing the camera at an object in front of you, guess what? Your camera is in a direct line with but slightly in front of a particular object -- namely you yourself.

Yet for some reason, the camera doesn't take a picture of you, despite the fact that you're bathed in light. It only takes a picture of what you're pointing it at -- that is, the camera can only take a picture of an object if it's receiving light that was emitted or reflected from that object. Similarly, your eye can only see something if it is receiving light that was emitted or reflected from that object.

Q.E.D.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it doesn't support the claim that I am using the quote function in the way you expect, but that does not mean I am not using the quote function in a way that people still get who is talking. I could jumble everything up and no one would know who is talking to whom, but people are getting it, I hope. Now, if I accidentally put the wrong name in the quotes, that could be a problem. But that could happen to anybody, especially if they're posting a lot.

An excellent way of using the quote function so that people DON'T know who is talking would be mislabeling who says what. There is no IF you are doing that, you did put the wrong name in the quotes and did it several times. So you are doing that, and it could be a problem. I'm glad you recognize this (at least a little). It probably is to people who are reading and not responding to you, because they don't remember writing certain things--and I, being the writer, do. Yes, it could happen to anyone, but a sensible anyone would go back and edit their post once they realized they had done that.

When you don't go back and edit your posts and you continue to make glaring mistakes, all while claiming that you are trying to post sensibly, that affects your credibility.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course they're not. It hasn't even entered their minds because they don't see the connection. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

They haven't considered that purple people eaters are really creating holograms and beaming that into our minds whenever we see Butterfinger candy bars either. Guess why?

Originally Posted by wildernesse

That is because they don't have anything to do with each other.

Oh, hai, there's me saying why before.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am showing you why the knowledge that the eyes are not a sense organ is important in terms of the implications. It should be obvious by now that in order to be taken seriously, there needs to be more proof, but that does not make him wrong wildernesse.

Yes, showing that the eyes are not a sense organ IS important to Lessan's implications. That's why the fact that the eyes are a sense organ makes people think he is a crackpot and they can't seriously consider his ideas.

If there needs to be more proof, then you need to get cracking on it. And lack of proof does not make him correct, obviously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you ever think that it could be you who has the problem communicating? Regardless, I don't go around calling you stupid, a troll, or dishonest because that would not be accurate. That's an important distinction that is made in the book regarding words (stupid, uneducated, unintelligent, ugly, etc.) that do not accurately symbolize reality and do a lot of harm in damaging self-esteem, especially when we are children.

Well, it could be that I am the one with the problem communicating. But the fact that everyone else is having the same problems communicating with you points to the idea that it is you who has the problem. Also, I generally do not have problems communicating.

It is right that you would not be accurately describing me as stupid or dishonest, because I have not exhibited those traits in this thread (at least). That you could not accurately call me a troll based on my behavior in this thread is less certain. I doubt I would take it as an insult.

Most of those words in your parentheses do accurately portray reality. A person who lacks knowledge is uneducated, for example.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did make mistakes in this thread. I think I put my name where yours should have been and vice versa. But I didn't do it intentionally, so my troll quotient should be coming down precipitously.

Nope.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really believe I'm doing this on purpose (definition of troll), so you feel justified in calling me a troll. Your conscience is working just the way it was designed to.

Lands' sake. I said it was possible that you were a troll, if you didn't have a reading comprehension problem. In the exchange that immediately followed this one, I concluded that you have a reading comprehension problem. I have also said that you being a troll is not the simplest explanation, because I do actually think you have some problems with comprehension

I do not really believe you are a troll, even though it was one of the possibilities I considered for why you are responding in the way that you do. Future events could prove me wrong, and I could change my mind.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said earlier, maybe I do have a reading comprehension problem, or maybe the way you explain yourself is the problem. Whatever! Once again, we're getting way off track and I'm spending a lot of wasted time talking about me instead of the book.

LOL

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you don't, and no one else does either, but that doesn't make him wrong. As I mentioned many times, if this was so easy it would have been discovered a long time ago. So instead of just rejecting his claims outright, step back as a good scientist does (although I know you're not a scientist) and keep an open mind before shutting the door.

It also doesn't mean he is right. I haven't rejected his claims outright--I compared them to how I know the world works, listened to people who know more about some things that I do, and concluded that Lessans is a crackpot. A good scientist does not keep their mind open to purple people eating nonsense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's not what you said. You said that if something is valuable people will listen regardless of whether the person presenting the information has higher order thinking skills. Now you're saying something different. You're saying that some people will not take me seriously because of these so-called characteristics.

No. This is what I said:

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Because a reader who knows the vocabulary words in a scientific paper could present the information to an audience, even without knowledge of the science or the capability to analyze and manipulate the data for themselves, it is certainly possible for you to be doing the same, even if you are ignorant of science and not able to apply the information to the many examples provided.[emphasis added]

You are the one who placed the word [will] into play in this concept. ETA: Ok, I said will first, in making a distinction between whether just because something is possible means that it is necessary. Changing the word from [could/can] to [will/would] changes the meaning. I also made no claims about the validity of the material based on the characteristics of the presenter. My entire point is that they do not have to be linked, and I provided an example of a first grader reading a scientific paper to an audience to illustrate. You are the one who is linking the characteristics of the presenter to the validity of the material.

I doubt you can OR will understand this, since you haven't already.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not getting defensive. I just want clarity and I want to respond appropriately. If you call me a liar, I am going to tell you I'm not a liar, and if this causes a problem in reaching my ultimate goal of discussing these ideas productively, then so be it. I don't see where my appropriate response would delay a productive discussion except for the fact that we are getting completely off track, and have been for many pages now.

Do you even read what you write? In this exchange, you admit to becoming defensive in certain instances at first and then state that you are not getting defensive in the second. What on earth? It's flail or stupidity or both.

You also don't see how delaying your ultimate goal is possible, except for the fact that it is actually occurring in the very post that you are creating! It's absurd! This is why I have such a hard time ruling out the possibility that you are a troll, because I have a hard time believing someone could be this dumb!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what your motive is. Maybe it's to try to bring out something in me that people would use to judge my sincerity or capabilities. Or maybe you really do believe I have a communication problem and you are trying to help me (which I doubt). Or maybe it's just for entertainment value. I don't think it's that we have competing values. We all want the same thing in life: happiness, joy, peace, love, and purpose.

I do have competing values, though, when it comes to this thread and when it comes to many aspects of life. I am motivated to get this thread to 100 pages, even if I have to have a countdown to do it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It means that he was very capable of figuring out all sorts of difficult math problems. The math problem he gave in the beginning of the book (although some people say that this isn't math) where the professor said that the problem could not be done, was done and I have the correct answer in a folder he left me.

Ok. So, he was a mathematician. Why is that relevant to his philosophical discovery?

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages.

[peacegirl]

[quote=The Lone Ranger;936805]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is conveying information, but it's in reference to the actual leaf. You aren't getting the information just from the light. It's in combination with how the leaf reflects and absorbs the light that allows you to identify the chemical make up of the leaf. There is no conflict here.

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

Huh? The only thing that reaches the eye (or the spectrographic analyzer) is light that is reflected from the leaf. You shine light on the leaf and then, based upon how much light is reflected at different wavelengths, you can identify the chemical components of the leaf. I can tell you which pigments a leaf contains (the two forms of chlorophyll aren't the only pigments that a leaf can have) -- and which it doesn't -- simply by examining the light it reflects. Obviously, my ability to do so is due to how the pigments of the leaf absorb and reflect light.

Of course we see because of the pigments that the leaf absorbs and reflects.

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

But if the information that allows me to determine which wavelengths of light are absorbed and which are reflected is not encoded in the reflected light itself, then where on Earth is it? It's not as if I need to know what a leaf is in order to see that it reflects green light. And the spectrographic analyzer certainly doesn't have any idea what a leaf is, but it gets the same results that my eyes do.

It gets the same results because it is accurate. Who said it wasn't encoded? I don't even understand where you got that idea.

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

What allows me to determine which wavelengths of light are absorbed and which are reflected by the leaf's pigments is the fact that different wavelengths of light stimulate the three different kinds of cone cells in the retina differently.

There is a connection, no doubt. There are photoreceptors, no doubt. The only question is how we are seeing the actual object. Is it an image from signals, or are we seeing the real object in real time? That is the only question that matters for the purposes of this discussion.

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

Thus the mixture of different wavelengths in the light striking my retina determines which of the three cones are stimulated, and to what extent. The impulses that are generated when the cone cells are stimulated by the light striking them are then relayed to the brain.

NO. I know that you say the optic nerve is afferent, and I am not in the position right now to argue that. What I am saying is that there is a connection between the photoreceptors and the light. Which direction we are seeing is what we are trying to determine.

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

That is how my brain can determine which wavelengths of light are being received (and which are not), and so can determine the color of the leaf -- by analyzing which cones are being stimulated by the light striking them, and to what extent.

No, at that point it has nothing to do with the brain's interpretation. The brain can still determine the color of the leaf by looking at it directly because the receptors are allowing the brain to do this.

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

The light that was, you know, reflected from the leaf and (because different pigments absorb and reflect different wavelengths of light) is thus transmitting information about the pigments contained in the leaf.

Of course it is. I never denied this. It's just a matter of how we see the actual object. Do you get what I'm saying at all Lone Ranger?

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

And it's not as if humans are unique in any way regarding our ability to detect colors and to distinguish between objects based simply upon which wavelengths of light they happen to absorb and reflect. Indeed, most birds and many insects are considerably better at it than we are.

That also does not conflict. Animals see shapes and sizes because of a better fovea, but they cannot recognize individual features without the words that would give them this knowledge. Only humans can do this. That is why evolution has given animals the ability to smell and hear much better than humans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is a very good question, Wildy.

Peacegirl, exactly what do you mean when you say that Lessans was a mathematician? Was he, at sometime, employed in that capacity? Did he publish any work in the field?

Angakuk, that is not the criteria that I am using to determine whether Lessans was a true mathematician. If I use all of your definitions, then of course he would be crushed. But I'm using a definition that would give him the honor of being able to manipulate numbers whether you call it mathematician or not. You are all caught up in definitions, which mean absolutely NOTHING unless those definitions correspond with reality.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I notice that his obituary makes no mention of his having been a mathematician, or a philosopher. Why the omission? Did you have any say about what information was included in his obituary?

You have to be kidding. Do you think that a few sentences that you are allowed is going to give his entire life story? I'm shocked by this question as if it indicates something that you can use to discount his knowledge. It's absolute beyond ridiculous.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That also does not conflict. Animals see shapes and sizes because of a better fovea, but they cannot recognize individual features without the words that would give them this knowledge. Only humans can do this. That is why evolution has given animals the ability to smell and hear much better than humans.

Wanna bet? [Please, bet a lot.] There are plenty of animal species that are much better at recognizing and distinguishing "individual features" than are humans. Most birds, for example.

It has been empirically demonstrated, for example, that at least some bird species can recognize and distinguish between individual humans based upon facial features alone. This is of vital importance to some of my colleages. Some of my colleagues who work with colonially-nesting birds have to go and take samples every now and then. The birds don't like this, and will dive-bomb the researcher as soon as they see him or her. [They don't do this to random persons walking along the beach.] So, some researchers wear face-concealing masks to avoid getting mobbed by the birds. But each mask works only once or perhaps twice. So after every session, the researcher has to switch to a new mask in order to prevent the birds from recognizing and attacking him or her. (And remember, most birds have essentially no sense of smell. Their vision, on the other hand, is typically much better than is a human's.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is not what we were discussing at all - you are squirming away from the question at hand.

It is also yet another example of Lessans thinking: he takes one part of how the brain interprets the information from the eyes, and then takes that idea and tries to make it fit all of reality, as a sort of gandiose discovery. It does not apply that widely, nor is it that much of a discovery.

Sure, conditioning has a part in how we model the world internally, but it is not the only part, nor is it the main one. We would still see without conditioning, or word association. Words do not, in fact, rule the way we think and make decisions as much as Lessans thinks - in fact, we have seen studies indicating that many decisions are made instinctively by the parts of the brain that have to do with emotions, and that we have a hard time consciously controlling, and only rationalized by the rest of the brain afterwards. No words involved there - the part of the brain that involves language is part of the second category. This means that we see first, and apply labels (words) later. Certainly not that we can only see because of the labels.

Also - what is being photographed, and with what? I will give you a hint - it is sort of in the word PHOTOgraphed.

If this were true, we would not be able to see things we do not have a word for - as it turns out, we can.

Compare Lessans with reality, and time after time again there are huge discrepancies. The man was a rather grandiose enthusiast, but he did not think his system through, blinded by his own need to have come up with a world-spanning, global and universal solution to just about everything.

Stop it right there! Your conclusions about this man are so off the mark that I am sickened. I really need to, once again, take a break even though I just got here. I cannot deal with the attacks that have no reference to who this man was. I need to calm down before I act like an idiot, which you all already think I am, and would use against me to verify that this man had nothing to offer. Do you see how you are all acting like lawyers instead of scientist?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a connection, no doubt. There are photoreceptors, no doubt. The only question is how we are seeing the actual object. Is it an image from signals, or are we seeing the real object in real time? That is the only question that matters for the purposes of this discussion.

That's right, it's all information ... and, what a brilliant deception it is!

Of course it's not like someone or something is trying to withhold this from us entirely, for at least we are allowed to see this much if we deliberate on it.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is it an image from signals, or are we seeing the real object in real time? That is the only question that matters for the purposes of this discussion.

And what we've been telling you over and over is that this question has already been asked, and answered. Experimental data, which you seem to believe will support Lessans' ridiculous assertions, for the past 300 years has come crashing down resoundingly on the side of "image from signals." That IS the way we see. There has been exactly no data to suggest otherwise in all the studies on the subject. Feel free to start showing why those studies and experiments are flawed and how they can be fixed, but you'll have to be specific. Too many people here will know if you're bullshitting and will happily correct you.

The only reason this matters in the first place, aside from establishing just how little Lessans actually knew about science, is that key parts of his 'fix the world' theory require words to have a heckuvalot more power over our cognitive processes than they actually do. This is the reason you're so resistant to evidence that other animals can identify people from facial features alone, because animals don't use words, and if they can do that without words then so can humans.

Really, this is beyond absurd. Lessans was wrong about how we see, he was wrong about "projecting words," he was wrong about seeing distant events in real time instead of with a delay. You can (and probably will, since it is obviously the path to greatest satisfaction for you) continue to obfuscate, move goalposts, call for more evidence while ignoring what is presented, and generally ignore anything that might get through your preconception that Lessans got it all right anyway somehow. That he was flatly, unequivocally, demonstrably WRONG about these things will not change.

[Vivisectus]

They are not attacks, they are critiques, although you seem to have difficulty dealing with them. They also do not reference who he was, but what he wrote and what you have presented, asking people to read it and share their opinions.

We are in fact pointing out that science has little to do with Lessans ideas, as his thinking was profoundly unscientific - it treats ideas as fact just because they seem right to him, not because they are supported or can be shown to be true.

You just want a special treatment of his ideas based on your attachment to them - basically to accept them as gospel, even though they are unsupported and sometimes downright impossible - on the promise that great things will happen if we do. Sorry, we already have something like that, and it had a far more talented salesman behind it. Better writer too, although I was never a fan of pulp scifi.

[The Lone Ranger]

Here's just one example (there are quite a lot) of birds recognizing and distinguishing between people based upon their facial features.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Kael

And what we've been telling you over and over is that this question has already been asked, and answered. Experimental data, which you seem to believe will support Lessans' ridiculous assertions, for the past 300 years has come crashing down resoundingly on the side of "image from signals."

It also says we have no idea of what we are looking at, that is, if we think it's all external ... because the entire experience of it or, what we deem to be reality, is all inside our head.

So we have to ask, why does the whole Universe appear to stand directly in front of us when, in fact, the whole dang thing is entirely within? This is all that any of us is looking at.