A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No they would not Lone Ranger. I already agreed that light sends impulses to the brain via the optic nerve. I think that's why people are upset. They don't like their hard-won knowledge to be faulty in any way, so they're blaming me, as if I am to blame if it does turn out to be faulty.

Okay, evidently I didn't type slowly enough last time. Maybe if I type even slower ...

You repeatedly claim that the eye is an efferent organ. Or are you changing your story yet again?

The definition of an efferent organ is that it receives input from the Central Nervous System and acts upon it. Now then, the only direct connection between the retina of the eye and the CNS is the optic nerve.

Therefore, the eye could be an efferent organ only if neural impulses are traveling via the optic nerve from the brain to the retina of the eye.

But the optic nerve is made up of the axons of neurons in the retina. And neurons will conduct impulses in only one direction. In this case toward the brain, not away from it.

So yes, the eye can be an efferent organ only if pretty-much everything we know about the physiology of sight -- and specifically, neural function -- is exactly backwards.

Got it now, or do I need to type even slower?

I don't know why you are not understanding what Lessans is saying. It in no way contradicts Relativity. The speed of light has nothing to do with it. LIGHT IS A NECESSARY CONDITION OF SIGHT, according to Lessans. We see an object because it is large enough to be seen, and there is enough light surrounding the object. If sight were efferent, our gaze would be immediate because THE IMAGE IS NOT BEING CARRIED IN THE LIGHT, NOR IS INFORMATION TRAVELING IN LESS TIME THAN IT WOULD TAKE LIGHT TO TRAVEL BECAUSE THERE IS NO INFORMATION BEING SENT.

You can't be as dense as you pretend. Neutron stars aren't that dense.

Nonetheless, I'll play along.

You have repeatedly claimed that if the Sun were not shining, and it ignited right now, we'd see it come on immediately, as it happened, in real time -- and not some 8.5 minutes later.

If I observe that the Sun is not shining for some period of time, and then I observe it is now shining, I have definitely learned something. If nothing else, I've learned "The Sun was not shining before; now it is shining."

In other words, information has traveled between the Earth and Sun.

And since you claim that we'd see the Sun come on in real time, that information has traveled between the Earth and Sun at faster-than-light speed.

Which is flat-out impossible, according to the principle of Relativity.


All of that pales next to this: it is an observed and easily-demonstrated fact that we do not see in real time. You can easily confirm this for yourself, in fact. Not that you'll make the effort, of course.

In fact, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "real time." Objects in different reference frames experience the passage of time differently. This is not just a theoretical claim; it has been experimentally verified many, many times.

I just went through your list of evidence against him, and half of what you used as evidence isn't even true. For starters, seeing an object directly has no bearing on the speed of light, so the idea that this contradicts Relativity is catagorically false.

You're either so dense that you have a substantial gravitational field all by yourself, or you're a deliberate liar.

I want to understand what's relevant to this discussion. I need proof that the brain is interpreting impulses. If you can show me that this is not a logical conclusion, but an absolute fact, I'll concede.

Oh, do stop lying. You've made it abundantly clear that you will ignore any and all evidence -- no matter how well-tested and thoroughly verified -- that does not conform to your views.


One thing is indeed certain: nothing that anyone here could say could possibly do more to make Lessans' ideas and claims look utterly ridiculous than your own attempts to defend them.

[Doctor X]

Like Joe Biden.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

If you keep asking "are we there yet," I'm going to turn this car right around and take us home.

Please hurry I gotta go !

and I'm feeling sick, I think Im gonna throw up,

I hope peacegirl doesn't throw up in the car again.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You have repeatedly claimed that if the Sun were not shining, and it ignited right now, we'd see it come on immediately, as it happened, in real time -- and not some 8.5 minutes later.

If I observe that the Sun is not shining for some period of time, and then I observe it is now shining, I have definitely learned something. If nothing else, I've learned "The Sun was not shining before; now it is shining."

Now I get it! So every night at sunset God turns out the light (the sun) so we can sleep. And then at sunrise god turns the light (the sun) back on so we can see to eat our cerial. But I'm going to check and see if we see the light just when they say sunrise is or 8.5 min later. I'm so excited.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Neutron stars aren't that dense.

Neutron stars are not mentioned in the Sacred Text and therefore do not exist. Damn, you "scientists" are a silly lot!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Please hurry I gotta go !

and I'm feeling sick, I think Im gonna throw up,

I hope peacegirl doesn't throw up in the car again.

I'm driving as fast as I can!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In fact, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "real time." Objects in different reference frames experience the passage of time differently. This is not just a theoretical claim; it has been experimentally verified many, many times.

Yes, of course, I have pointed this out to her numerous times, and at one point she specifically stated that she did not need to know anything about the theory of relativity!

Priceless irony that Lessans invokes Einstein in his book, evidently clueless to the fact that Einstein's relativity makes Lessans' "real time" seeing impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, there are impulses, but he disagrees that these impulses are bringing anything that can be converted into an image. That is pure theory.

Originally Posted by Kael

The thing is, it's not. It is not theoretical at all, but an observed, replicable phenomenon that we understand fairly well at this point. We construct and use devices on a daily basis that would not work if light did not carry information that can be converted into an image. Neither would our eyes, were that the case. Of course, were that the case they never would have evolved in the first place, but that's a discussion that you are woefully unprepared for.

You would know all this, and could easily verify it yourself, if you simply took the time to educate yourself. Should I hold my breath? Probably not.

Kael, tell me what devices on a daily basis would not work if sight was efferent? We can definitely see the results of knowledge that is factual because there is a cause/effect relationship that must be in place , so tell me which devices wouldn't work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I told you from day one peacegirl to expect a lot of heat here at . Your having a different POV isn't the cause if the unpleasantness, your complete inability to make a rational supported argument or intelligently discuss the issues is.

LadyShea, they are using me as a target. It's really gotten abusive so I'm only going to talk to certain people from here on in, and I want the discussion on the eyes to come to an end. I still thank you for helping me by making me realize I don't have to talk to everyone just because they post.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

At this point you cannot rehabilitate yourself, you have demonstrated you cannot be reasoned with and that you cannot present convincing or valid reasoning or support for Lessans notions. You are histrionic and dogmatic and have some weird martyr thing going on. It will not get much better for you.

Believe me, I know my time on this thread is numbered.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Simple
YouTube - how does vision work

More involved. I can't get the video to work but your can read the transcript and view the slides

Thanks for sharing that LadyShea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

From page 184 of The Sacred Text:

So Seymour Lessans -- who died in 1991, mind you -- knew that in the future the retard George W. Bush would become POTUS, and further knew one of Bush's speeches verbatim at least eleven years before it occurred! Can anyone reasonably doubt that the Illuminated One was truly favored of God?!*

*This is, of course, just another in an endless series of instances in which peacegirl shovels her own bullshit and falsely represents it as Mr. Lessans' bullshit. I suspect that peacegirl has been dedicated to this fool's errand for so long that she's no longer capable of making such distinctions. That's more than a little pitiful.

You are really like rabid animals on the attack. You are like people on a total witch hunt and you can't stop the momentum. Obviously you didn't read the following because you want to copy davidm and make me a scapegoat. I hope you can sleep at night.

Please note that when the author mentions the 20th century he is
referring to the time period when this discovery was first made. This
book was meant to be read through the eyes of the author. His
prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was
based on the assumption that this discovery would be found
scientifically sound after a thorough investigation. Unfortunately,
this did not come to pass because he was unable to reach the leading
scientists of his time who could have validated his findings. Though
it has been over 50 years since these findings were uncovered, there
has been no such investigation and, as of yet, this revolutionary
knowledge has not been brought to light.

Due to the time lapse since
the book’s last printing the editor has added some recent examples to
show how the extension of this knowledge applies to our current world
situation, but please be assured that the core of this discovery has not
been altered in any way and is written in the author’s own words. For
purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used
throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe me, I know my time on this thread is numbered.

? ? If you had said your minutes or hours on this thread are numbered, it would make sense.

? ? If you had said that your time on this thread is limited, it would make sense.

? ? That you said "my time on this thread is numbered" made as much sense as the book you're trying to sell, "None at all".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This book was meant to be read through the eyes of the author.

A total raving lunatic, with no sense of reality, so enamored with his own ideas he had lost all contact.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. His prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was
based on the assumption that this discovery would be found
scientifically sound after a thorough investigation. Unfortunately,
this did not come to pass because - .[/I]

he was completely and totally wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for sharing that LadyShea.

Hopefully a video on an elementary school level will be simple enough for her to understand.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

I'm driving as fast as I can!

Ooooh, is that a siren, oooh I'm really feeling sick, I hope the officer has a barf bag.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Kael, tell me what devices on a daily basis would not work if sight was efferent? We can definitely see the results of knowledge that is factual because there is a cause/effect relationship that must be in place , so tell me which devices wouldn't work?

This is about your assertion that light does not contain the information that is reassembled into an image. Were this the case, every kind of visual recording device we have ever built, every sort of camera, film, digital, still, motion, would never have worked, because they all function by various mechanisms that gather light and reassembling that information into an image.

We don't even need to talk about your wankery with how the human eye works - this whole thing falls apart with Lessans' claims about what light does and doesn't do, every single one of which is demonstrably false. Light doesn't work that way.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Ooooh, is that a siren, oooh I'm really feeling sick, I hope the officer has a barf bag.

--J. "YOU BOYS EVER BEEN TO MEX-EE-CO?!!!" D.

[LadyShea]

Fiber optic communications would not work if light couldn't carry information. As stated neither could there be an image on a TV if information in light couldn't be reassembled.

As I said before, a case could be made for conditioning using only neuroscience...no need for sight to be efferent. Vision is much more than just the image. The brain identifies and categorizes everything we see, makes associations, and applies emotions. Labels such as beautiful are applied during thes processes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Charmion, peacegirl has been going around to different forums for many years having a very similar discussion to the one we are having here. There are several links to other discussions on page one of this thread.

What does that prove LadyShea except that these forums are all alike; just a different set of faces? It is like every person has taken the same upper philosophy courses, and now they feel in the position to judge any new idea that crosses their path. Well they aren't. They are stumbling and bumbling over their own defense and they don't like it because they are suppose to be THE SCIENTISTS. How dare anyone tell them they might have made an honest mistake. That's why they curse and go crazy because they can't stand being in the wrong so they are trying to force compliance. That is an underhanded tactic and it is a poor reflection on them, not Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

? ? If you had said your minutes or hours on this thread are numbered, it would make sense.

? ? If you had said that your time on this thread is limited, it would make sense.

? ? That you said "my time on this thread is numbered" made as much sense as the book you're trying to sell, "None at all".

Blocks of time can be numbered. Days are numbered because a day is 24 hours (AN HOUR IS A UNIT OF TIME). Twenty four hours is a unit of TIME. SURPRISE SURPRISE!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If no information is being sent from the object to the brain how does the brain form an image with no information from what is being looked at?

Doc, you first need to understand what Lessans means by light is a condition of sight. If you can't get this, you will keep saying that information can't be sent faster than the speed of light.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No they would not Lone Ranger. I already agreed that light sends impulses to the brain via the optic nerve. I think that's why people are upset. They don't like their hard-won knowledge to be faulty in any way, so they're blaming me, as if I am to blame if it does turn out to be faulty.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Okay, evidently I didn't type slowly enough last time. Maybe if I type even slower ...

You repeatedly claim that the eye is an efferent organ. Or are you changing your story yet again?

I never did change the story Ranger, so I don't know what you're referring to.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The definition of an efferent organ is that it receives input from the Central Nervous System and acts upon it. Now then, the only direct connection between the retina of the eye and the CNS is the optic nerve.

Therefore, the eye could be an efferent organ only if neural impulses are traveling via the optic nerve from the brain to the retina of the eye.

But the optic nerve is made up of the axons of neurons in the retina. And neurons will conduct impulses in only one direction. In this case toward the brain, not away from it.

There is no dispute that the optic nerve is sending impulses to the brain. It's what those impulses are doing that is in question.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So yes, the eye can be an efferent organ only if pretty-much everything we know about the physiology of sight -- and specifically, neural function -- is exactly backwards.

Got it now, or do I need to type even slower?

That's not true Ranger. Impulses can be coming in, but we still don't know exactly how the brain uses those impulses. I realize that you are 100% sure that the brain is interpreting those impulses. I am saying there is the possibility that another mechanism is going on as far as the brain and the impulses that the brain is receiving IS concerned.

I don't know why you are not understanding what Lessans is saying. It in no way contradicts Relativity. The speed of light has nothing to do with it. LIGHT IS A NECESSARY CONDITION OF SIGHT, according to Lessans. We see an object because it is large enough to be seen, and there is enough light surrounding the object. If sight were efferent, our gaze would be immediate because THE IMAGE IS NOT BEING CARRIED IN THE LIGHT, NOR IS INFORMATION TRAVELING IN LESS TIME THAN IT WOULD TAKE LIGHT TO TRAVEL BECAUSE THERE IS NO INFORMATION BEING SENT.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You can't be as dense as you pretend. Neutron stars aren't that dense.

Nonetheless, I'll play along.

You can play along, but you better be careful what you say because I don't want to have to put you on the ignore list too.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You have repeatedly claimed that if the Sun were not shining, and it ignited right now, we'd see it come on immediately, as it happened, in real time -- and not some 8.5 minutes later.

If I observe that the Sun is not shining for some period of time, and then I observe it is now shining, I have definitely learned something. If nothing else, I've learned "The Sun was not shining before; now it is shining."

That's true, but if what you are trying to say is that the darkness of the sun is due to the light that hasn't reached us yet --- therefore we are seeing in delayed time --- that is what is being challenged here. So don't use this as part of your conclusion when, for the purpose of this discussion, it is just a first premise.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In other words, information has traveled between the Earth and Sun.

Yes, that is true.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And since you claim that we'd see the Sun come on in real time, that information has traveled between the Earth and Sun at faster-than-light speed.

Which is flat-out impossible, according to the principle of Relativity.

Noooo, 100 times nooooo!!! I really do think there is a problem in getting it, not because Lessans didn't explain it properly, but because the present model of sight is totally ingrained in you, and you can't get beyond it to understand how efferent vision could actually work.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

All of that pales next to this: it is an observed and easily-demonstrated fact that we do not see in real time. You can easily confirm this for yourself, in fact. Not that you'll make the effort, of course.

Show me.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In fact, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "real time." Objects in different reference frames experience the passage of time differently. This is not just a theoretical claim; it has been experimentally verified many, many times.

That's the assumption that is in question. Again, you are putting the horse before the cart.

I just went through your list of evidence against him, and half of what you used as evidence isn't even true. For starters, seeing an object directly has no bearing on the speed of light, so the idea that this contradicts Relativity is catagorically false.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're either so dense that you have a substantial gravitational field all by yourself, or you're a deliberate liar.

There's another possibility. You can't understand efferent vision at all, so you keep going back to the theory of Relativity, as if this claim of efferent vision contradicts everything in physics. What a copout! Is it possible that Lone Ranger is the dense one here because he is so stuck on his model of sight that he can't even contemplate the possibility that he could be wrong? If you can call me dense, it's fair game that I can call you dense in return.

I want to understand what's relevant to this discussion. I need proof that the brain is interpreting impulses. If you can show me that this is not a logical conclusion, but an absolute fact, I'll concede.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Oh, do stop lying. You've made it abundantly clear that you will ignore any and all evidence -- no matter how well-tested and thoroughly verified -- that does not conform to your views.

Of course I won't, you wouldn't either if you weren't convinced. I'M NOT CONVINCED, and until I am, I will not give in just to avoid your criticism.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

One thing is indeed certain: nothing that anyone here could say could possibly do more to make Lessans' ideas and claims look utterly ridiculous than your own attempts to defend them.

Maybe, maybe not. It might be that my attempts to defend him will be taken seriously one day, and then empirical testing to see if he is right, will be the final artiber.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does that prove LadyShea except that these forums are all alike; just a different set of faces?

It doesn't prove anything. Charmion found a previous discussion and mentioned it so I responded to her that we are aware.

And these forums are populated by people. So in that humans share many characteristics, yes we are "all alike". You do tend to choose forums that have a base of critical thinkers, though.

It is like every person has taken the same upper philosophy courses, and now they feel in the position to judge any new idea that crosses their path. Well they aren't.

Of course people are in a position to judge any new idea that crosses their path for themselves. What do you mean they aren't? You judged Scientology as a cult, IIRC.

FTR I did not go to college.

They are stumbling and bumbling over their own defense and they don't like it because they are suppose to be THE SCIENTISTS.

Only a few people you have discussed with here are scientists.

How dare anyone tell them they might have made an honest mistake.

What you really mean is how dare anyone tell you that Lessans might be mistaken, isn't it?

That's why they curse and go crazy because they can't stand being in the wrong so they are trying to force compliance. That is an underhanded tactic and it is a poor reflection on them, not Lessans.

LOL persecution complex and martyrdom. People are freely expressing themselves, just as you are. Nobody is being forced to do or say anything....what on Erth do you mean by "trying to force compliance"?