A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One more quick answer. You cannot use the tests that have been done because no one has challenged afferent vision, so the tests would only confirm other theories that could be wrong as well.

Do you actually think that the initial tests of retinal cell function were done with the assumption that the cells in the first retinal layer were phototransducers? (Hint: they weren't; the result was a big surprise to the initial researchers. Subsequent testing has thoroughly confirmed it, however.)

Heck, early theorists did think that vision was essentially efferent (because Aristotle thought so), but testing disconfirmed the notion.

New independent tests must be done to prove, one way or another, who is right. The fact that you say the tests have been done worries me, because they have not been done to my satisfaction.

And that's it in a nutshell you've as much as said that you will reject every test that doesn't confirm your beliefs, no matter how carefully it's done, and no matter how many times it's successfully replicated.

[thedoc]

It is interesting that Peacegirl quotes an article that supports the standard model of vision,

[quote Space Daily]
We predict that as new surveys look deeper and hence further into the past, they should see fewer faint red galaxies" [quote]


Which is to say that by looking further into the past we are seeing galaxies as they were thousands, millions and billions of years ago, not as they are now.

Peacegirl, you should probably read the article before posting it, and possably have someone explain it to you.

BTW is anyone familiar with 'Space Daily' as a source for astronomical data?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wowwww!!! Maybe you've been honest for the very first time because you are at a loss for words. That's a good thing.

Says the dishonest idiot who repeatedly says she has "already explained" how her idiot "model" of vision works, while at the same time admitting at least four times that she is unable to explain it; and so says the idiot who cliams that cameras both can, and cannot, take pictures in real time, and so says she who claims that it's possible to see instantaneously that which logically cannot be seen for eight and a half minutes no matter how vision actually works.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This would make you no different than a creationist because of your belief that science can do no wrong.

Bullshit, you lying idiot, no one here holds that "science can do no wrong." Science by its nature is a self-correcting process. What science CAN show is that some things are definitively wrong: the flat earth, the geocentric solar system, and every line that your idiot father ever wrote about vision and light.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you think I realize this Kael? This is what Lessans was disputing. And that's why Lessans believed that a camera would be taking a picture of the galaxy as it is right now, not millions of years ago.

QUOTH HER ROYAL HIGHNESS:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the case of the sun being ignited, the camera would have no way of taking a picture because the wavelengths have not arrived for the camera to do so.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[ [if sight is efferent] because the image would not be coming from the light.

You say it would not be coming from the light (where it would be coming from, neither you nor your idiot father say) but your idiot father says, as I've pointed out to you repeatedly, that LIGHT IS A CONDITION OF SIGHT. THAT MEANS, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN IDIOT FATHER, THE LIGHT MUST BE PRESENT.

However, since light travels at a finite rate of speed, it will NOT be present from any celestial source until a certain amount of time has passed, rendering the claim of "real-time seeing" impossible.

By the way, it's evident that your royal highness is not aware that the theory of relativity prohibits the transfer of ANY information at greater than light speed, rendering "real-time" anything impossible.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Lone, I'm not saying that. It is an inescapable observation that if a camera can take a picture of a supernova (however brief it is), that means there is enough light present for the camera to be able to do this. Therefore, we can also see the image because it is obviously bright enough. If the light hadn't reached us yet, how could a camera take a picture of it?

Oh, fuck, you are stupid!

"If the light hadn't reached us yet, how could a camera take a picture of it?"

It couldn't, you fucking idiot! That is what we have been telling you for nearly 180 fucking pages! And since light travels at a finite rate of speed, taking a picture and seeing in real time is impossible. You can't take a photo of the sun, or see it, until the light arrives.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you say the tests have been done worries me, because they have not been done to my satisfaction.

Does anyone here harbor the slighest notion that, if the test data were provided in the fullest detail, Peacegirl would even look at it, understand it, or accept it in any way shape or form. I'm willing to bet that she would even discredit the scientists who preformed the tests, unless they were self-taught from the 7th grade on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Do you actually think that the initial tests of retinal cell function were done with the assumption that the cells in the first retinal layer were phototransducers? (Hint: they weren't; the result was a big surprise to the initial researchers. Subsequent testing has thoroughly confirmed it, however.)

Heck, early theorists did think that vision was essentially efferent (because Aristotle thought so), but testing disconfirmed the notion.

And that's it in a nutshell you've as much as said that you will reject every test that doesn't confirm your beliefs, no matter how carefully it's done, and no matter how many times it's successfully replicated.

I know what you think. I'm a test subject to you as someone who you believe is faith driven and will not let go of her position no matter what. The truth is I don't believe every test has been done. I want confirmation (I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting this) that the tests are accurately done. I was just reading about Aristotle and trying to find out if he believed in efferent vision but I couldn't find anything on this. This is what I found so far:

There are, however, some added features in his theory that need to be mentioned. To begin with, Aristotle believed that we don’t perceive anything directly. Instead we perceive things indirectly, through some sort of medium. This medium varies from sense to sense. In the case of hearing, for example, it is air. In the case of seeing, it is air which contains something Aristotle chooses to call the “transparent,” which is closely related to light. (Book II, chapter 7) According to T.W. Bynum’s interpretation in his article “A New Look at Aristotle’s Theory of Perception,” the transparent does not have an independent existence, but is always found in something else, usually air, water or aether, the eternal fifth element (see the third paragraph of my paper on Aristotle’s astronomy). [1] Light is the activity of the transparent. In the absence of light, the transparent is only potentially active, and this is what is called darkness.

Let us return to Bob’s orange. Let’s also assume it’s a normal orange and has orange as its color. According to Aristotle, the color of the orange causes the transparent medium, in this case air, to move. (Book II, chapter 7) The medium is continuous, and thus the motion that is produced in it eventually reaches Bob’s eye, causing it to see orange. To prove that this is the case, Aristotle points out that if you place a colored object on your eye, you won’t see it. This is because there is no intervening medium between the object and the sense organ.

snip

The same problem seems to exist in our modern theories of sense perception. We talk about the eye as receiving reflected light from the object being perceived, which then becomes a “coded message” of some sort. This message is then sent to the brain, where it is “decoded” and interpreted as, for example, an orange. However, when we close our eyes and “see” the orange with our “mind’s eye,” what exactly does the image of the orange consist in, and what is it that’s actually “perceiving” the orange?

There is at present an argument among scholars that all mental activity (i.e. activity of the “mind”) is the result of physical reactions in the brain. [10] However, there is as yet no explanation for what exactly it is that is happening when, for instance, someone like Bob is “seeing” an orange in his head. To simply say that a certain amount of neurons are being fired when this happens is not a satisfactory explanation. Individual neurons by themselves are not capable of visual perception, so to simply assert that some neurons are “watching” other neurons which embody the image of an orange, does not make for a convincing story.

[The Lone Ranger]

peacegirl: "I don't think this matter has been sufficiently tested. Therefore my claim is every bit as legitimate as is the scientific consensus. After all, I don't personally know of any tests that have been done with reference to my claims. (Not that I've actually made an effort to find out, of course.)"

Respondant: "Here are several thousand examples of tests which specifically addess your claims. They're cleverly hidden in places called 'libraries,' and in things called 'books,' but they can be found with a little effort."

peacegirl: "None of those tests are satisfactory."

Respondant: "Why not?"

peacegirl: "They don't give the results I want."



There we go: the whole thread summarized, nice and neat. No charge.

[thedoc]

I still think my summary is better, at a level of maturity and intellect that peacegirl might understand.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
- Ad nauseam - Ad infinitum.

Summary of 200 pages.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Creationists talk about problems with the theory of evolution, saying it's just a theory, it may be wrong. At least they specify some areas they think are definitely wrong (and can therefore be tested) such as misidentification of hominid fossils or misinterpretation of a certain geological feature.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Gravity is only a theory as well. It may be wrong. Would that make this essay* more likely to be correct?

I am redoing this post because I didn't go to the link. Sorry about that. It is true that something being wrong doesn't make something else right. The truth has to stand on its own, not by default. I just clicked on the link and it is sooo stupid, it was funny. I'm certain you are putting Lessans in the category of someone who is trying to defy gravity. I cringe when I think about it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.

This parody was really funny because it was so obviously ridiculous, but why are you posting it in here? Could it be you are trying to associate Lessans with these type of individuals through association?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

*The essay is a parody, but uses the "just a theory" argument similarly to creationists, and you peacegirl

I see how you are trying to compare me with them because I use the word theory, just like they do. Now I can't use this word because I will be associated with creationists? Do you really think that's fair LadyShea?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

peacegirl: "I don't think this matter has been sufficiently tested. Therefore my claim is every bit as legitimate as is the scientific consensus. After all, I don't personally know of any tests that have been done with reference to my claims. (Not that I've actually made an effort to find out, of course.)"

Respondant: "Here are several thousand examples of tests which specifically addess your claims. They're cleverly hidden in places called 'libraries,' and in things called 'books,' but they can be found with a little effort."

peacegirl: "None of those tests are satisfactory."

Respondant: "Why not?"

peacegirl: "They don't give the results I want."



There we go: the whole thread summarized, nice and neat. No charge.

That was funny, but it was also a parody meant to make me look stupid. Why are you doing this Lone Ranger? You are the one making it appear as if all the tests have been done. How can you say this if the tests that I believe need to be done have not been done? Moreover, how can there be books in the library on this topic except for the books that confirm what everyone already believes. It's completely circular.

You say there is proof regarding the photoreceptors and how they transduce into chemical messengers. You say it's fact. I am not sure whether it's fact. You say they see the process in the deepest part of the cell. Can they see the actual transformation from photons to chemical messengers in the optic nerve, or is there a gap in the described process that requires a leap of faith, or a theoretical proposition? I really need to understand this further.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, fuck, you are stupid!

"If the light hadn't reached us yet, how could a camera take a picture of it?"

It couldn't, you fucking idiot! That is what we have been telling you for nearly 180 fucking pages! And since light travels at a finite rate of speed, taking a picture and seeing in real time is impossible. You can't take a photo of the sun, or see it, until the light arrives.

You're missing the whole point david, because you're not extending the principles of efferent vision, therefore you keep saying the same thing over and over again. I wonder who the real fucking idiot is??? Will the real fucking idiot please stand up?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you say this if the tests that I believe need to be done have not been done? Moreover, how can there be books in the library on this topic except for the books that confirm what everyone already believes.
.

How can you say this without actually looking at the tests to see what has been done. Or are you going to say thay can't possably be right because you have not looked at any of them. If you don't look at them they can't be right and they can't hurt your claims. Is this how you protect yourself, when something scary comes up you just cover your eyes?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

??? Will the real fucking idiot please stand up?

Please don't stand up Peacegirl, or your brains will fall out.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really need to understand this further.

Indeed.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing the whole point david, because you're not extending the principles of efferent vision, therefore you keep saying the same thing over and over again. I wonder who the real fucking idiot is??? Will the real fucking idiot please stand up?

What "principles of efferent vision" would those be, peacegirl? Given that you've already admitted on at least four occasions that you haven't got a fucking clue how "efferent vision" works.



By the way, peacegirl, does the camera take pictures in "real time" or not? Since you're on record as saying that it both does, and does not.

Just askin'!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you say this if the tests that I believe need to be done have not been done?

Which tests that YOU "believe need to be done," have not been done?

Details, please! Do tell!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Moreover, how can there be books in the library on this topic except for the books that confirm what everyone already believes. It's completely circular.

What complete and utter bullshit. If you knew anything at all about what science is and how it's done, you'd hang your head in shame for posting something so stupid and so insulting.

Can they see the actual transformation from photons to chemical messengers in the optic nerve,or is there a gap in the described process that requires a leap of faith, or a theoretical proposition?

Why yes, we do know exactly what chemicals are involved, how they absorb photons and change configuration in response, and how this causes the photoreceptor to hyperpolarize. (Note that photoreceptors don't depolarize when they absorb light; they hyperpolarize. You'd know this if you'd bothered to make any effort to educate yourself on the matter.) And no, no leaps of faith or theoretical propositions are needed -- we're talking direct observation here.

We also know how hyperpolarization of photoreceptors causes the bipolar cells to depolarize, and how that causes the ganglion cells to depolarize and so transmit signals via the optic nerve.

All this has been tested and retested countless times, and our understanding of the process is established beyond any reasonable doubt. As mentioned, we can see this happening right down to the level of the individual molecules. We can see pigment molecules absorbing photons and changing configuration as a result. And we can see the resulting hyperpolarization of the photoreceptors (and describe it, right down to the opening and closing of Na+ channels and the movement of Na+ ions). We can see the resulting depolarization of bipolar cells and how they subsequently cause depolarization of ganglion cells and the generation of the action potentials that are relayed to the brain via the optic nerve.

All of this is known and observed down to the level of the individual molecules involved. And you'd know this if you were truly interested in learning about it. It's not like it's difficult to find this information.

I really need to understand this further.

To give yourself even the slightest shred of credibility, yes, you do. So far though, you've shown exactly zero evidence that you're actually making any effort to do so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What "principles of efferent vision" would those be, peacegirl? Given that you've already admitted on at least four occasions that you haven't got a fucking clue how "efferent vision" works.



By the way, peacegirl, does the camera take pictures in "real time" or not? Since you're on record as saying that it both does, and does not.

Just askin'!

No I'm not saying it both does and does not. If that what you think you're all washed up. I said a camera works when the light is already here. If God suddenly turned on the sun, then a camera would not work. So anytime a camera works, it means that light bouncing off an object has reached the camera's aperture, and it also means that the object which is reflecting the light can be seen (efferent vision David) because the object (or image) is large enough and bright enough for the eyes to see it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I'm not saying it both does and does not. If that what you think you're all washed up. I said a camera works when the light is already here. If God suddenly turned on the sun, then a camera would not work. So anytime a camera works, it means that light bouncing off an object has reached the camera's aperture, and it also means that the object which is reflecting the light can be seen (efferent vision David) because the object (or image) is large enough and bright enough for the eyes to see it.

Supernovae don't reflect light -- they emit it. Just like the Sun. Since a supernova is, you know, an exploding star. And a typical supernova is so far away that before it explodes, too little light from the star reaches the Earth for it to be visible even with a telescope, much less the naked eye.

A supernova explosion more or less literally is a star being turned on -- albeit very briefly.

Therefore, by your own logic, we should be unable to photograph supernovae for years after they're clearly visible to the naked eye, since every supernova is a minimum of several light-decades away from the Earth. Therefore it takes a minimum of several decades for their light to reach us.

Q.E.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I know how science is done, but sometimes what appears to be true might not be. The only point I was making was that all of the books support afferent vision. Yes, I want to understand the model, but these books, no matter how accurate you think they are, will not give me the answers I need. Only empirical tests will do that. That's all I meant.

Why yes, we do know exactly what chemicals are involved, how they absorb photons and change configuration in response, and how this causes the photoreceptor to hyperpolarize. (Note that photoreceptors don't depolarize when they absorb light; they hyperpolarize. You'd know this if you'd bothered to make any effort to educate yourself on the matter.) And no, no leaps of faith or theoretical propositions are needed -- we're talking direct observation here.

We also know how hyperpolarization of photoreceptors causes the bipolar cells to depolarize, and how that causes the ganglion cells to depolarize and so transmit signals via the optic nerve.

All this has been tested and retested countless times, and our understanding of the process is established beyond any reasonable doubt. As mentioned, we can see this happening right down to the level of the individual molecules. We can see pigment molecules absorbing photons and changing configuration as a result. And we can see the resulting hyperpolarization of the photoreceptors (and describe it, right down to the opening and closing of Na+ channels and the movement of Na+ ions). We can see the resulting depolarization of bipolar cells and how they subsequently cause depolarization of ganglion cells and the generation of the action potentials that are relayed to the brain via the optic nerve.

All of this is known and observed down to the level of the individual molecules involved. And you'd know this if you were truly interested in learning about it. It's not like it's difficult to find this information.

To give yourself even the slightest shred of credibility, yes, you do. So far though, you've shown exactly zero evidence that you're actually making any effort to do so.

I will study this further, but I won't be convinced until there is absolutely no chance of it being wrong. You say it's beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is still a shred of doubt. Do you say this only because you have to say this since science, by definition, is based on a theoretical framework? I realize for all intents and purposes, it's fact, according to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So what's your point?

A supernova explosion more or less literally is a star being turned on -- albeit very briefly.

Therefore, by your own logic, we should be unable to photograph supernovae for years after they're clearly visible to the naked eye, since every supernova is a minimum of several light-decades away from the Earth. Therefore it takes a minimum of several decades for their light to reach us.

Q.E.D.

I don't know if your calculations are right. All I know is that if a supernova is that far away, we wouldn't be able to see it not because the light hasn't reached us yet, but because there wouldn't be enough light emitted from the light source for the cones and rods to detect the image. By the same token, a camera wouldn't be able to take a decent picture of the supernova for the same reason, even if the light had reached the Earth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

You do not understand what that word means in science. There is no such thing as "just a theory." A theory is the highest level of scientific idea, and requires the most supporting evidence and the least contradictory evidence (i.e., none). It ties together all the disparate facts, each independently verifiable, into a cohesive and predictive model. Any further facts which do not fit will result in a modified or completely new theory.

You do not even have facts that support Lessans' ideas, only his repetitive claims, and yours, that it is undeniably true, a phrase that you also apparently do not understand. If you think the current models of how we see are incorrect, the best approach is to prove it. That means facts, not assertions. It means experiments and data, not unquestioning insistence of your claims and willful ignorance of the current body of data, which is infinitely larger than the data you bring to the table, seeing as you've brought nothing.

You make it look like this is an empty assertion, and that's not true Kael. You are, in a last ditch effort to discredit Lessans, trying to make it look as if his observations meant nothing since he didn't form a hypothesis and collect data as his means of attaining information. I said over and over and over that if people need more empirical evidence, that's fine, but that doesn't mean his observations were inaccurate and will eventually be proven to be right.

I find that highly doubtful. Even if you do read it, you will probably not understand, and claim that it does not contradict efferent vision.

Kael, it is you who keeps repeating the same thing, but of course you don't see it. First of all, just because his claims were not <proven> in the way you expected, did not make them assertions. I said umpteen times that Lessans' observations came from years and years of careful analysis. Experiments and data do not always create a perfect theory, no matter how perfect the facts look. You say a theory is the highest level of a scientific idea and requires the most supporting evidence. Then you say it ties together all the disparate facts. If that is the case, why is it called a theory? A theory, no matter how convincing, allows room for error, by definition. If not, it is mere dogmatism. Isn't this exactly what happens in a court of law; all of the "apparently" disparate facts are perfectly put together which makes the prosecution look flawless? The following quotations are from individuals who would have understood what Lessans went through, unlike you people...

Great scientific discoveries have been made by men seeking to verify quite erroneous theories about the nature of things. ~Aldous Huxley

Scientific principles and laws do not lie on the surface of nature. They are hidden, and must be wrested from nature by an active and elaborate technique of inquiry. ~John Dewey

Reason, Observation, and Experience - the Holy Trinity of Science. ~Robert G. Ingersoll

But in science the credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to the man to whom the idea first occurs. ~Francis Darwin

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. ~Carl Sagan, 1987

The universe is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper. ~Eden Phillpotts, A Shadow Passes

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ~Max Planck, A Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, 1949

The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. ~Albert Einstein

Science, like life, feeds on its own decay. New facts burst old rules; then newly divined conceptions bind old and new together into a reconciling law. ~William James, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, 1910[/QUOTE]