A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[Why are you getting so upset just because there is not a clear explanation as to how something occurs? How something occurs comes later down the road. TO REPEAT: Just because the how isn't answered, doesn't mean the observation is wrong. The more important issue is whether the observation is right, and in this case I believe it is.

Usually the 'how' is provided and verified before the observation is accepted as correct. What you believe is not revelant to what is true. Do you believe in 'Santa Claus'?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I did not contradict myself. We see the object because of light's reflection. We don't see the reflected light. Why can't you get this David?

Get what? It's fucking retarded gibberish! We don't see reflected light, but we see the object because of the light's reflection? WTF? Clause Two of your statement directly contradicts Clause One! Just like your claim that we see the sun instantaneously directly contradicts your admission that we don't see the sun's light until 8.5 minutes pass! So, according to you, we see instantaneously that which we can't see for 8.5 minutes!

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you getting so upset just because there is not a clear explanation as to how something occurs? How something occurs comes later down the road. TO REPEAT: Just because the how isn't answered, doesn't mean the observation is wrong. The more important issue is whether the observation is right, and in this case I believe it is.

Actually, that's the part you're contesting. We all agree that people can see things, you're just claiming that our how is wrong, but when pressed for your version of how we see, all we get are badly stretched analogies and purple prose about negatives of relationships. Oh, and descriptions of "observations" about sight that are demonstrably inaccurate and can be shown to be inaccurate with only a modicum of effort, even for a layman.

See why we are having a hard time giving dear old Lessans the benefit of a doubt? There would have to be a REALLY REALLY BIG DOUBT surrounding the current model for the paltry offering Lessans proffers to be a reasonable replacement. At this point in time, there isn't a small fraction of that much doubt around our current understandings of light and how we see.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Kael

Actually, that's the part you're contesting. We all agree that people can see things, you're just claiming that our how is wrong, but when pressed for your version of how we see, all we get are badly stretched analogies and purple prose about negatives of relationships.

This is the whole fucking key right here, peacegirl, the point I've been making to you all the way since almost the beginning of this idiotic thread. You and The Great Man say our HOW of seeing is wrong; but you do not offer a "How" of your own; you even admit that you do not know what the mechanism is!

But, as I pointed out a long time ago, not only are you unable to offer a "how" to challenge our "how," there is no reason to challenge our "how." The model of light and vision has no flaw in it, no point of controversy!

And so I say for the third time in this thread:

You have a non-existent solution, to a non-existent problem.

But you will never see any of this, because you a cult member. Fortunately, it is a cult of exactly one: you.

The worst part of your whole display here is your dishonesty. You said a couple of pages back that you, peacegirl, were going to look into the scientific account of sight. One would think you would already know the account that you presume to critique, right? Because if you don't understand what the account is, how do you know it is wrong?

Oh, I know! Because Lessans said so!

Of course, if you were really interested in learning the scientific account of sight, The Lone Ranger has written you an essay.

You refuse to read it.

Your dishonesty really is the worst part of this whole train wreck.

[Stephen Maturin]

Not much has changed since September 2010 when she was lying (post #529) about being Lessans' daughter and attempting to exonerate herself (#540) with pleas that lying was the path to greater satisfaction and the lesser of two evils.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Not much has changed since September 2010 when she was lying (post #529) about being Lessans' daughter and attempting to exonerate herself (#540) with pleas that lying was the path to greater satisfaction and the lesser of two evils.

It is amazing, isn't it, her patent dishonesty, plus the fact that wherever she goes, she gets exactly the same reception by people that know ever so much more than she, and she reacts in precisely the same way.

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by peacegirl
[I did not contradict myself. We see the object because of light's reflection. We don't see the reflected light. Why can't you get this David?

We see the object Peacegirl because the object reflects the light.
Light does not reflect on it's self.

Why can you not get this Peacegirl?


Light it self you can not see Peacegirl, totally invisible, or you need to fling a handfull of dust of your prehistoric school books into the rays of light.

How we are able to see the colours of a object is for myself real interesting,
a soft touch in nature, a majestic way of how the spectrum of light interacts with what you see.

The sun " a top sales man " with all the colours in store.
Without the sun colour does not exist, or you look dorky in a discotheque.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Originally Posted by davidm

Get what? It's fucking retarded gibberish! We don't see reflected light, but we see the object because of the light's reflection? WTF? Clause Two of your statement directly contradicts Clause One! Just like your claim that we see the sun instantaneously directly contradicts your admission that we don't see the sun's light until 8.5 minutes pass! So, according to you, we see instantaneously that which we can't see for 8.5 minutes!

No, we don't see anything in the light because the image is not getting into our brain this way. We see the object or image that the light is reflecting. It's as simple as that. This has more to do with what is going on with the eye and brain, than what is going on with the light. Maybe that's why you don't see it.

You are the one that keeps saying we can't we see for 8.5 minutes. You are the one setting up this premise this way, which is why you think it's a contradiction. I think you are confused because you strongly believe, and support the notion, that something in the light --- apart from the object or image --- can be decoded into information. It doesn't work that way, according to Lessans. When I say light has information, all I mean is that (and this so repetitive people are probably getting bored) the properties of light allow objects and images to be seen. The object or image then is seen by the eyes, gets recorded in the brain, because of how the brain is able to photograph what it sees. Don't ask me how it does this because I don't have that answer. It just does, if Lessans' observation is correct.

So if the sun was turned on and began emitting light (that has not reached Earth yet) that light would have to travel to get to Earth. But if the eyes were efferent (looking out and seeing what's out there in real time), we would see that first burst of light without that light having traveled to reach our eye. Which would also mean that the light would not have to impinge on the retina for the image to be seen. The pupils would still dilate or contract, and the optic nerve would still react, but it would not be sending information that way to the brain, so the impulses would not have any signals in them (through a conversion process) that could possibly be decoded into an image.

[LadyShea]

No, we don't see anything in the light because the image is not getting into our brain this way. We see the object that the light is reflecting. It's as simple as that.

Rainbows
Monitors
TV screens
Mirror reflections

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Awareness

We see the object Peacegirl because the object reflects the light.
Light does not reflect on it's self.

Why can you not get this Peacegirl?


Light it self you can not see Peacegirl, totally invisible, or you need to fling a handfull of dust of your prehistoric school books into the rays of light.

How we are able to see the colours of a object is for myself real interesting,
a soft touch in nature, a majestic way of how the spectrum of light interacts with what you see.

The sun " a top sales man " with all the colours in store.
Without the sun colour does not exist, or you look dorky in a discotheque.

I am not arguing this. We are able to see how light interacts with everything in nature. But we are SEEING THIS IN REAL TIME. This is not an interpretation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Rainbows
Monitors
TV screens
Mirror reflections

We went through this already LadyShea. I just happened not to put image in that sentence. I just changed it. It doesn't matter whether it's just light that we are seeing. It's the visible spectrum that is allowing this to occur. It is the property of light that allows us to see. Even though the optic nerve is reacting, it does not contain signals that are converted from the photoreceptors in the retina. This is a theory only. Lessans did not believe this was occurring:

A photoreceptor cell is a specialized type of neuron found in the eye's retina that is capable of phototransduction. The great biological importance of photoreceptors is that they convert light (electromagnetic radiation) into signals that can stimulate biological processes.

[LadyShea]

Don't ask me how it does this because I don't have that answer. It just does

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter whether it's just light that we are seeing. It's the visible spectrum that is allowing this to occur. It is the property of light that allows us to see.

We don't see the reflected light.~peacegirl to davidm

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, we don't see anything in the light because the image is not getting into our brain this way.

*

We see the object or image that the light is reflecting.

Oh, noes! We in Reality World always thought that objects reflected light. So now you are saying that light reflects an object? So ... what? When the light meets an object, the object itself goes hurtling toward our face and mashes itself inside our eyes, and that is how we see it?

It's as simple as that.

This has more to do with what is going on with the eye and brain, than what is going on with the light. Maybe that's why you don't see it.

The reason I, and everyone else here, does not "see it" (oh, irony) is because it's just about the most imbecillic, incoherent thing anyone has ever written.

You are the one that keeps saying we can't we see for 8.5 minutes. You are the one setting up this premise this way, which is why you think it's a contradiction. I think you are confused because you strongly believe, and support the notion, that something in the light --- apart from the object or image --- can be decoded into information. It doesn't work that way, according to Lessans. When I say light has information, all I mean is that (and this so repetitive people are probably getting bored) the properties of light allow objects and images to be seen. The object or image then is seen by the eyes, gets recorded in the brain, because of how the brain is able to photograph what it sees. Don't ask me how it does this because I don't have that answer. It just does, if Lessans' observation is correct.

Of course you don't have an answer to something so incredibly inane!

So if the sun was turned on and began emitting light (that has not reached Earth yet) that light would have to travel to get to Earth. But if the eyes were efferent (looking out and seeing what's out there in real time), we would see that first burst of light without that light having traveled to reach our eye. Which would also mean that the light would not have to impinge on the retina for the image to be seen. The pupils would still dilate or contract, and the optic nerve would still react, but it would not be sending information that way to the brain, so the impulses would not have any signals in them (through a conversion process) that could possibly be decoded into an image.

Isn't there some Web site that collects and posts the most asinine comments ever made on the Web? I want to submit the above.

And with that, peacegirl, I'm done with you. I won't even be reading your repetetive insanities any longer, much less responding to them. I will check in ever once in awhile to bump this thread further along to the Page 200 Party, and that's it. Buh-bye!

*Thanks to Lady Shea for alerting me to the derp smilie.

[Awareness]

The point is not how we see everything "mechanically", but how we see everything mentally.

Examples are not so easy; but if you see a young guy trying his best to walk the walk, or trying to look tough, anyways not trying to walk but trying to be someone.

The reality is that you see a young man whom you think lost his mind, with almost feeling sorry for the person. Or even worse having chimp-rap moves.

Just be yourself, and don't be the world.

Because it's crazy, and we have become ten times blind.

Let alone a grey haired man is taking care of us or everything is just boxed in
with totally nothing of existance outside, no space no nothing.

Look totally 360 degrees against the world Peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

This is the whole fucking key right here, peacegirl, the point I've been making to you all the way since almost the beginning of this idiotic thread. You and The Great Man say our HOW of seeing is wrong; but you do not offer a "How" of your own; you even admit that you do not know what the mechanism is!

But, as I pointed out a long time ago, not only are you unable to offer a "how" to challenge our "how," there is no reason to challenge our "how." The model of light and vision has no flaw in it, no point of controversy!

And so I say for the third time in this thread:

You have a non-existent solution, to a non-existent problem.

But you will never see any of this, because you a cult member. Fortunately, it is a cult of exactly one: you.

The worst part of your whole display here is your dishonesty. You said a couple of pages back that you, peacegirl, were going to look into the scientific account of sight. One would think you would already know the account that you presume to critique, right? Because if you don't understand what the account is, how do you know it is wrong?

Oh, I know! Because Lessans said so!

Of course, if you were really interested in learning the scientific account of sight, The Lone Ranger has written you an essay.

You refuse to read it.

Your dishonesty really is the worst part of this whole train wreck.

I just had an aha moment. You are the dishonest one David, but you can't accept it. You are the one that has to defend your ideas come hell or high water, even if what you believe is blatantly wrong. I can't break through this barrier of yours, so there's no point in our continuing this conversation. You are too stuck on your ideas, not me. There is no trainwreck if you were not the engineer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LadyShea, you're just as bad as david, but in a more polite way. I have no right to ruin your sacred held beliefs that observation means garbage, and only empirical evidence counts, so let's end this discussion right now because it will only get uglier and uglier.

[LadyShea]

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So if the sun was turned on and began emitting light (that has not reached Earth yet) that light would have to travel to get to Earth. But if the eyes were efferent (looking out and seeing what's out there in real time), we would see that first burst of light without that light having traveled to reach our eye.

Light is a condition of sight.

Light takes ~8 minutes to travel from the Sun to your eyes.

How could we instantly see the Sun turn on if there's no light for 8 minutes?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Which would also mean that the light would not have to impinge on the retina for the image to be seen. The pupils would still dilate or contract, and the optic nerve would still react, but it would not be sending information that way to the brain, so the impulses would not have any signals in them (through a conversion process) that could possibly be decoded into an image.

The eye has all of these complex parts which focus and meter the light hitting the retina, yet this serves no useful purpose? This is yet another phenomenon that needs to be explained before anyone will take Lessans' ideas on vision seriously.

[LadyShea]

How could we instantly see the Sun turn on if there's no light for 8 minutes?

Because according to peacegirl the sun is large enough and bright enough to be seen by the naked eye at the moment it is turned on. We do not need the light here on Earth to see the sun's light.

The light does need to travel to Earth to illuminate our neighbors though so we can see them

[The Lone Ranger]

Here's another way in which it's easily demonstrated that we don't see in real time.

Around 1850, a Frenchman named Fizeau came up with a clever way to measure the speed of light. Note that it depends on direct observation of the light, and so would not work if we saw in real time.

Fizeau designed a device that shone a beam of light through a rapidly-spinning, toothed wheel. So as the wheel spun, the light source would be alternately covered and uncovered from the perspective of an observer. By using a wheel with 100 teeth and spinning it at several hundred times per second, Fizeau could produce a "blip" of light that lasted less than 1/10,000 second.

The brief beam of light that was emitted from the lamp was directed toward a distant mirror, and reflected back to the spinning wheel. By varying the speed at which the wheel spun and whether or not the returning light was visible through the same slot that had emitted it, Fizeau could time how long it took for the light to make the round trip. His apparatus was sufficiently well-designed that he could measure the speed of light to within a margin of error of 1,000 miles per second.

Now you'll note that the technique depends upon someone actually looking through the apparatus and observing the light in question. So it would not work if we saw in real time -- because if we did see in real time, no matter what speed the wheel was turning, we would always be able to see the distant mirror through the spinning apparatus.

But that's not what happens. If the wheel is spun fast-enough, we can't see the light reflected from the distant mirror, because the light doesn't have enough time to make the round trip before the slot that had allowed the light to pass out has moved out of position and so blocks the reflected light and prevents the observer from seeing it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Actually, that's the part you're contesting. We all agree that people can see things, you're just claiming that our how is wrong, but when pressed for your version of how we see, all we get are badly stretched analogies and purple prose about negatives of relationships. Oh, and descriptions of "observations" about sight that are demonstrably inaccurate and can be shown to be inaccurate with only a modicum of effort, even for a layman.

Where are his observations demonstrably wrong Kael other than the theories that already exist?

Originally Posted by Kael

See why we are having a hard time giving dear old Lessans the benefit of a doubt? There would have to be a REALLY REALLY BIG DOUBT surrounding the current model for the paltry offering Lessans proffers to be a reasonable replacement. At this point in time, there isn't a small fraction of that much doubt around our current understandings of light and how we see.

Just because he did not spell out a replaceable model does not mean his observations were paltry. There is a very big reason for considering this model of sight, and the most important reason for investigating is that we want to know the truth, don't we? Do you want to continue believing in a lie? Isn't science suppose to be supporting observations that are accurate? You don't see the accuracy yet, but to just say, with an air of arrogance, that you don't need to investigate because Lessans didn't have a replacement model is a cop out. He had enough reason to believe that afferent vision is 100% backwards.

[peacegirl]

repeat

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because according to peacegirl the sun is large enough and bright enough to be seen by the naked eye at the moment it is turned on. We do not need the light here on Earth to see the sun's light.

The light does need to travel to Earth to illuminate our neighbors though so we can see them

Because we are seeing efferently, and this means that the lightwaves do not have to impinge on the optic nerve since there are no signals that carry information. I am tired of repeating myself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Here's another way in which it's easily demonstrated that we don't see in real time.

Around 1850, a Frenchman named Fizeau came up with a clever way to measure the speed of light. Note that it depends on direct observation of the light, and so would not work if we saw in real time.

Fizeau designed a device that shone a beam of light through a rapidly-spinning, toothed wheel. So as the wheel spun, the light source would be alternately covered and uncovered from the perspective of an observer. By using a wheel with 100 teeth and spinning it at several hundred times per second, Fizeau could produce a "blip" of light that lasted less than 1/10,000 second.

The brief beam of light that was emitted from the lamp was directed toward a distant mirror, and reflected back to the spinning wheel. By varying the speed at which the wheel spun and whether or not the returning light was visible through the same slot that had emitted it, Fizeau could time how long it took for the light to make the round trip. His apparatus was sufficiently well-designed that he could measure the speed of light to within a margin of error of 1,000 miles per second.

Now you'll note that the technique depends upon someone actually looking through the apparatus and observing the light in question. So it would not work if we saw in real time -- because if we did see in real time, no matter what speed the wheel was turning, we would always be able to see the distant mirror through the spinning apparatus.

But that's not what happens. If the wheel is spun fast-enough, we can't see the light reflected from the distant mirror, because the light doesn't have enough time to make the round trip before the slot that had allowed the light to pass out has moved out of position and so blocks the reflected light and prevents the observer from seeing it.

Where in the world does this prove anything? Obviously if the light is being blocked, we can't see the mirror. You are saying that the observer should be able to see the mirror even though there is no condition upon which that mirror could be seen. Am I going crazy, or is this just a bad dream?