A revolution in thought

[Doctor X]

One too lazy to read a 30-page summary of human sight cannot bitch about the laziness of others.

But I guess since Brandon Orr left, posters need a new squeeze toy.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

One too lazy to read a 30-page summary of human sight cannot bitch about the laziness of others.

But I guess since Brandon Orr left, posters need a new squeeze toy.

--J.D.

Your comparison is not worthy of anything Doctor X. I am focussing on one part of the eye model that has anything to do with efferent vision, so your saying this to confuse everyone means absolutely nothing, and is duly noted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

BULLSHIT!

You are so confused David, that we cannot converse. Do you actually think the larger the words you type change anything, if there is no content in those words? You, of all people, should know that large print does not change what that print says. You are more childish in your thinking than I actually realized.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Actually, efferent vision is impossible for the simple reason is that efferent vision contradicts the known physiology of the eye.

Arguing about Special Relativity is just another way of making you think about how illogical Lessans' concept of vision really is. It's clearly not working.

All sorts of arguments have been made, but in reality, like LadyShea wrote, you need at least one example where the current theory of vision fails to explain a phenomena. If you can do that, someone may actually take efferent vision seriously.

There are numerous examples if the premise is efferent vision. There are no examples if people start off with the premise of afferent vision. They will never take efferent vision seriously unless they do the right empirical tests, or when Lessans is vindicated because his other discoveries turn out to be true.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are numerous examples if the premise is efferent vision. There are no examples if people start off with the premise of afferent vision. They will never take efferent vision seriously unless they do the right empirical tests, or when Lessans is vindicated because his other discoveries turn out to be true.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by pissgirll

You are so confused David, that we cannot converse. Do you actually think the meaner and larger the words you type change anything? You, of all people, should know that large print does not change what that print says. You are more childish in your thinking than I actually realized.

Hey, pissgirl, did you miss this post?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

We know what peacegirl will say. She has said it again and again. She will say: “Efferent seeing and afferent seeing are mutually exclusive. Seeing instantaneously might be impossible for afferent seeing, but not for The Great Man’s efferent seeing.” Something to that effect.

Now let’s home in on the key point, and watch peacegirl squirm, evade, prevaricate and ultimately just stipulate. When all else fails, she falls back on her empty, unsupported assertions: “Efferent seeing does not contradict the special theory of relativity.”

But it DOES.

The key point is that it’s irrelevant HOW we see. The violation of relativity is blatant. That’s the part she weasels out of addressing.

It’s simple to show:

1. Lessans claimed that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see this IMMEDIATELY. Is that not his claim, peacegirl? Hey, it’s in your Holy Book!

2. Learning that the sun has been turned on is GAINING INFORMATION, by definition! Are you prepared to deny such an obvious fact?

From 1. and 2. immediately follows the conclusion: People (says The Great Man) are able to acquire information INSTANTANEOUSLY. That is the point. We can, for the sake of argument, assume that Lessans’ ridiculous “efferent seeing” is true. But if it’s true then, by Lessans’ own descriptions, it entails instantaneous acquisition of knowledge, regardless of HOW that knowledge is acquired under his “theory.” Thus, peacegirl’s claim that the efferent seeing is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity, because, under efferent seeing, no information is conveyed by light to the eyes, is a red herring; indeed it is wholly beside the point. The point is that Lessans holds that we acquire information (somehow!) INSTANTANEOUSLY.

And that is what the theory of relativity rules out! So Lessans’ claim of instantaneous acquisition of information is in direct conflict with the theory of relativity. Q. E. D.

Now, peacegirl, you’ve already changed your story on this. Earlier you said, without providing any evidence, that relativity theory was wrong. Now you maintain that it is correct, but not in conflict with efferent seeing. But I have just shown that it IS in conflict with efferent seeing. So which way will you wiggle and weasel now?

If it followed that the only way to acquire knowledge is through light transmission of all information, then, yes, I would be wrong. But that's not the case because efferent vision (which is not in competition with the speed of light) was not what SR was referring to. Get over it David. You lose, and because you lose, all of us win.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you can't seem to grasp because you are stuck on the word "convey, is that it doesn't fit into this definition because nothing is being transmitted. It is seen. There is no time element involved because the external world is there to be seen, not to receive information on the waves of light. The truth is "we see what we see when we see it...BECAUSE WE CAN SEE IT. That is a true statement.

It is a true statement, but it has no explanatory power. It is what my 5 year old knows is true. Remember when I said efferent vision is so simplistic as to be akin to calling all similar species horsey or doggie? This is exactly what I meant.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just saying "it is seen" is not an explanation of anything at all

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If he is correct, the brain focuses on outside stimuli because of inside stimuli sending electrical impulses (which does conveying and transmit information) to the brain, which is the conducting link that causes a change in the brain to begin focusing on what it is experiencing by the other senses.

Why would the brain focus the eyes on stars in the sky when the stars do not provide any other sensory output for the brain to experience and "change to begin focusing"? You can't hear the stars, you can't feel the stars, you can't taste them.

This is meaningless gibberish. Do you really think you are saying anything at all?

The brain has acquired information from a source outside itself (information about the object). You really need to start with how the brain acquires it, otherwise you are weaseling and distracting.

It charges the brain to do something, not to receive something.

What charges the brain?

That is a fair analysis, which doesn't require the images to be in the light and decoded by the brain itself.

You have completely failed to explain anything and completely sidestepped the whole point I have been making

Information about an object is acquired in the brain. That is a transfer of information. Seeing is a transfer of information. If the conveyance mechanism is NOT light, then what is it?

According to you, so far, it is either magic or a miracle.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This explanation does not negate Einstein, nor does it cause information to be conveyed faster than the speed of light when you recognize that the speed that it took the brain to receive impulses from the the other senses fits within the definition because they are "sense organs".

So, the other impulses that are sensed follow relativity because it takes time for the sound, taste, tactile sensation to give the brain information about an object? That's what you are going with now?

Okay, then we're back to how do we see objects that provide no other sensory information? Basically how do we see all the images we can see that are pure light? Stars in the sky, rainbows, images on a computer monitor, images on a TV with the sound turned off, reflections of all kinds...that's not even mentioning regular objects too distant to touch, smell, hear or taste...a distant mountain range or a sailboat on the horizon?

You tried this line of reasoning on FRDB, I remember reading it and was even waiting for it, but you waited hella long to use it here. Either you're desperate now, or you forgot that there are many, many things we can see that we can't and don't experience with any other senses.

Were you hoping we wouldn't notice the error large enough to park a supermassive black hole in?

[LadyShea]

If it followed that the only way to acquire knowledge is through light transmission of all information, then, yes, I would be wrong. But that's not the case because efferent vision (which is not in competition with the speed of light) was not what SR was referring to.

Efferent vision means information is acquired instantly. SR says that information, of any kind, cannot be transferred instantly by any means (light or otherwise).

So, the onus is on you to explain the mechanism or means by which instant information acquirement happens and why the eyes and brain are somehow exempt from the laws of physics.

To do so, you either have to claim SR is wrong (which means you have to come up with a whole new theory of reality to replace it), or you have to assume magic/miracle, or you have to have found a previously unknown principle of physics that allows instantaneous information gathering but somehow remains compatible with SR (which would be most likely to come from the world of Quantum Mechanics). Which is it?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are numerous examples if the premise is efferent vision.

Then it should be easy to provide an example where efferent vision explains a problem which exists in the current theory. Would you mind giving me one?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you can't seem to grasp because you are stuck on the word "convey, is that it doesn't fit into this definition because nothing is being transmitted. It is seen. There is no time element involved because the external world is there to be seen, not to receive information on the waves of light. The truth is "we see what we see when we see it...BECAUSE WE CAN SEE IT. That is a true statement.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is a true statement, but it has no explanatory power. It is what my 5 year old knows is true. Remember when I said efferent vision is so simplistic as to be akin to calling all similar species horsey or doggie? This is exactly what I meant.

Not true LadyShea. His explanation was based on observations that were much more than a childlike response. These observations were related to years of study and analysis. But, according to you, anything that strays from empirical proof is a simplistic explanation which is no more valid than a child's imagination. Interestingly, this chapter discusses how children learn to distinguish between a horsey and a doggie.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just saying "it is seen" is not an explanation of anything at all

He gave an explanation, but it's never going to satisfy you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If he is correct, the brain focuses on outside stimuli because of inside stimuli sending electrical impulses (which does conveying and transmit information) to the brain, which is the conducting link that causes a change in the brain to begin focusing on what it is experiencing by the other senses.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would the brain focus the eyes on stars in the sky when the stars do not provide any other sensory output for the brain to experience and "change to begin focusing"? You can't hear the stars, you can't feel the stars, you can't taste them.

Because we're not talking about sight; we're talking about the other senses when a baby is just beginning to experience the world.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is meaningless gibberish. Do you really think you are saying anything at all?

Yes, I do. But you are interpreting what I'm saying from your personal experiences, which makes it difficult for you to grasp what I'm even talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The brain has acquired information from a source outside itself (information about the object). You really need to start with how the brain acquires it, otherwise you are weaseling and distracting.

No, that's not what I'm saying. The incoming stimuli from the 4 senses stimulates the brain. From this stimulation, the brain begins to focus, through the eyes, to see what it is experiencing. This stimulation causes the brain to want to see. Without this stimulation the brain would not desire to focus the eyes.

It charges the brain to do something, not to receive something.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What charges the brain?

The other senses. That wasn't the best choice of words. Please read this again. I understand that this is not proof of anything, but it is a reasonable explanation based on his observations.

If a newborn infant
was not permitted to have any sense experiences, the brain would
never desire to focus the eyes to look through them at the external
world no matter how much light was present. Consequently, even
though the lids were removed, and even though many colorful objects
were placed in front of the baby, he could never see because the brain
is not looking. Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was
kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous
glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other
four organs of sense, this baby, child, young and middle aged person
would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that
room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they
might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been
removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that
travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.

We
need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing.
Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit.

That is a fair analysis, which doesn't require the images to be in the light and decoded by the brain itself.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have completely failed to explain anything and completely sidestepped the whole point I have been making

Information about an object is acquired in the brain. That is a transfer of information. Seeing is a transfer of information. If the conveyance mechanism is NOT light, then what is it?

Don't you see the difference between light as a condition of sight, and light as a cause of sight? You are stuck because you think there has to be some kind of conveyer. There is a connection between the photoreceptors and the light. Without these two things, the eyes cannot see. These are necessary conditions, but there is no transmission through space and time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to you, so far, it is either magic or a miracle.

I give up. Do you mind if we get off this subject? It's going nowhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This explanation does not negate Einstein, nor does it cause information to be conveyed faster than the speed of light when you recognize that the speed that it took the brain to receive impulses from the the other senses fits within the definition because they are "sense organs".

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, the other impulses that are sensed follow relativity because it takes time for the sound, taste, tactile sensation to give the brain information about an object? That's what you are going with now?

No, the stimulation of the senses awakens the brain to desire to see (as infants) but it gives the brain no information about an object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay, then we're back to how do we see objects that provide no other sensory information? Basically how do we see all the images we can see that are pure light? Stars in the sky, rainbows, images on a computer monitor, images on a TV with the sound turned off, reflections of all kinds...that's not even mentioning regular objects too distant to touch, smell, hear or taste...a distant mountain range or a sailboat on the horizon?

Because you're getting confused. We see stars, rainbows, images on a computer monitor, images on a TV screen, because the conditions have been met for sight to occur. He mentioned how the brain is awakened when we're babies. Once the eyes are focussed, they stay that way. There is no more involvement from the other senses where sight is concerned. According to Lessans, this inability to focus as infants has nothing to do with the muscles of the eyes being underdeveloped, which is the explanation that is given today.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You tried this line of reasoning on FRDB, I remember reading it and was even waiting for it, but you waited hella long to use it here. Either you're desperate now, or you forgot that there are many, many things we can see that we can't and don't experience with any other senses.

Were you hoping we wouldn't notice the error large enough to park a supermassive black hole in?

LadyShea, you're getting confused probably because I have not explained it well. Let's suppose as an adult we lose our 4 senses. This does not mean we will lose our sense of sight. This only occurs when we're infants and the eyes have not yet focussed. Once this focussing takes place, the senses have no relationship with our ability to see.

[LadyShea]

You are weaseling. Why the hell did you bring up all the other senses and focusing crap when we are talking only about how we see?

When you see something, information about what you are seeing is acquired by the brain. This is a fact, yes or no?

The brain sees something and photographs it, fine, that is an acquirement of knowledge about something outside the body/brain. Yes or no?

As for childishly simplistic, how you can say it is not is hilarious.

How do we see?
Our brain sees through the eyes, using light as a condition and takes a photograph.
How does that work?
It sees.
What is the mechanism?
The brain looking through the eyes.
So the brain acquires information about the outside world?
NO, information is not conveyed to the brain, we see the outside world
How does the brain acquire information about the object it is seeing?
It looks out through the eyes and sees it

Jesus woman it's like talking to a toddler

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Then it should be easy to provide an example where efferent vision explains a problem which exists in the current theory. Would you mind giving me one?

If we start out with the premise that efferent vision is true, then that would explain why cameras take the same exact picture that the eyes would see. There would be no light that is so far away that a camera couldn't take a picture of it, yet we could still see the image.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is "we see what we see when we see it...BECAUSE WE CAN SEE IT. That is a true statement.

This sums up, more elegantly than perhaps any of us could, why Lessans' ideas, which are of course your ideas, are so completely wrong. When you start from a worthless tautology like this, ANY ideas of sight can grow from it, regardless of how flawed or how little they match reality. And, since you and he both accept what he spouts as God's Own Truth, you will never be able to understand WHY those ideas are incorrect.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are weaseling. Why the hell did you bring up all the other senses and focusing crap when we are talking only about how we see?

When you see something, information about what you are seeing is acquired by the brain. This is a fact, yes or no?

The brain sees something and photographs it, fine, that is an acquirement of knowledge about something outside the body/brain. Yes or no?

Yes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As for childishly simplistic, how you can say it is not is hilarious.

How do we see?
Our brain sees through the eyes, using light as a condition and takes a photograph.
How does that work?
It sees.
What is the mechanism?
The brain looking through the eyes.
So the brain acquires information about the outside world?
NO, information is not conveyed to the brain, we see the outside world
How does the brain acquire information about the object it is seeing?
It looks out through the eyes and sees it

Jesus woman it's like talking to a toddler

I already explained that the brain is constantly classifying and analyzing the data. The only difference is that it is photographing first, and recording second. Then it is putting the data in the proper category. There is a lot going on, more than the receive-transform-interpret model that you've been indoctrinated with. You're making this whole thing look hilarious. Why is receiving information from light that morphs into chemical-electrical signals (instantaneously, mind you) any less hilarious? Just because it satisfies your need for a reasonable sounding explanation, doesn't make it a necessarily reasonable explanation.

[LadyShea]

Let's go back to the first chapters.

- Human will is not free
Why Not?
- Because one always chooses that which leads to greater satisfaction
How do you know?
-I observed this to be the case
Observed it how?
-Astutely
I mean who did you observe?
-Human beings
Which human beings?
-Human beings in general
Do you have any logical argument to support your claim?
-Yes it is undeniable because it was astutely observed
How do we know your observations are accurate and apply to all people?
-Because they do
Yes, but how do we ascertain that your observations are accurate and undeniable?
-Because they are mathematical
Says who?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

This sums up, more elegantly than perhaps any of us could, why Lessans' ideas, which are of course your ideas, are so completely wrong. When you start from a worthless tautology like this, ANY ideas of sight can grow from it, regardless of how flawed or how little they match reality. And, since you and he both accept what he spouts as God's Own Truth, you will never be able to understand WHY those ideas are incorrect.

You know that wasn't the full explanation Kael. It was only in opposition to the afferent model which claims we see nothing directly.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we start out with the premise that efferent vision is true, then that would explain why cameras take the same exact picture that the eyes would see. There would be no light that is so far away that a camera couldn't take a picture of it, yet we could still see the image.

This isn't a problem in the current theory of vision. Cameras work very well under the current theory, and cameras do in fact see exactly what we do. Also, cameras can be even better at detecting light because they can be set to longer exposures and gather more light.

Care to try again? Remember, we're looking for a problem with afferent vision which can be explained better with efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's go back to the first chapters.

- Human will is not free
Why Not?
- Because one always chooses that which leads to greater satisfaction
How do you know?
-I observed this to be the case
Observed it how?
-Astutely
I mean who did you observe?
-Human beings
Which human beings?
-Human beings in general
Do you have any logical argument to support your argument?
-Yes it is undeniable because it was astutely observed
How do we know your observations are accurate and apply to all people?
-Because they do
Yes, but how do we ascertain that your observations are accurate and undeniable?
-Because they are mathematical
Says who?

That must be how everyone is interpreting this whole thread. But that's not, and never was, my answer. That would be ridiculous, and I wouldn't last a second in here if that were true. There is rhyme and reason to what is being said, but you have to be willing to follow the reasoning, which no one has done up to this point.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

This isn't a problem in the current theory of vision. Cameras work very well under the current theory, and cameras do in fact see exactly what we do. Also, cameras can be even better at detecting light because they can be set to longer exposures and gather more light.

Care to try again? Remember, we're looking for a problem with afferent vision which can be explained better with efferent vision.

I wasn't talking about cameras, per se. I was talking about reconciling the issue of seeing directly and a camera taking a picture, and there being no discrepency.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know that wasn't the full explanation Kael. It was only in opposition to the afferent model which claims we see nothing directly.

In fact, it IS the full explanation. Whenever you are pressed for details, examples, or precise mechanisms, you always come back to some form of this statement. "If it's big enough and bright enough, we can see it." You do not understand why this statement is the same as the one above. That's the whole problem. If you did, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because you wouldn't be so completely invested in a set of ideas that grows entirely out of ridiculous tautologies like this.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already explained that the brain is constantly classifying and analyzing the data. The only difference is that it is photographing first, and recording second.

And what we have been explaining is that there is no known mechanism for the brain to instantaneously acquire the data to analyze and photograph and categorize without violating special relativity which relates to all data/information gathering by point B from point A.

So, what is the mechanism that the brain is able to do this? Why is the brain exempt from the laws of physics

There is a lot going on, more than the receive-transform-interpret model that you've been indoctrinated with.

Strawman, nobody thinks there isn't a whole hell of a lot going on. Afferent vision only talks about how the data is acquired by the brain. The input, which is only the very first step. We also know the brain then does "a lot" of stuff with that data and information; searches the memory banks, categorizes, makes associations, etc.

We've never claimed otherwise.

You're making this whole thing look hilarious. Why is receiving information from light that morphs into chemical-electrical signals (instantaneously, mind you) any less hilarious, when you think about it?

Another strawman. We don't think seeing is instantaneous at all.

The problem is the instantaneous acquiring of information. Really if Lessans had stopped at how the eyes work, there wouldn't be so much at issue here. We would have stayed at the anatomy of the eye and maybe the visual cortex.

But no, he had to go on to say that efferent vision is instant acquirement of information. He had to make grandiose claims about time. Deal with it, it is his doing.

So I am looking for you to explain it since Lessans isn't available (or is he, since we go on and on after death)?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That must be how everyone is interpreting this whole thread. But that's not, and never was, my answer. That would be ridiculous, and I wouldn't last a second in here if that were true. There is rhyme and reason to what is being said, but you have to be willing to follow the reasoning, which no one has done up to this point.

Those ARE your answers, with all the purple prose and aggrandizing frippery stripped away. Those are the actual answers you have given.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That must be how everyone is interpreting this whole thread. But that's not, and never was, my answer. That would be ridiculous, and I wouldn't last a second in here if that were true. There is rhyme and reason to what is being said, but you have to be willing to follow the reasoning, which no one has done up to this point.

"Astute observation" has been your only answer all along. We mentioned this way back with the modal fallacy discussion. As Kael pointed out, stripped of all the quotes and red herrings, these have been your actual answers. You think I pulled that out of nowhere? You think I have posted in this 5000 post thread and not paid attention?

If there is rhyme or reason, anything beyond "astute observations of someone somewhere" then let's see it laid out logically. Answer the questions above with your own words in simple, clear, direct statements.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't talking about cameras, per se. I was talking about reconciling the issue of seeing directly and a camera taking a picture, and there being no discrepency.

There's no discrepancy between how the eyes and a camera works in the current theory of vision. You need to find a problem with the current theory - "afferent vision" as you call it, then you need to show how efferent vision might explain this problem better. This is the only way anyone will express a serious interest in your father's ideas about vision.