A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Of course vision involves information transfer, regardless of the "direction we see". Saying it doesn't is incorrect and nonsensical in every way.

[The Lone Ranger]

So ... the sign being held up by the guy on Earth -- the sign with the big number "42" on it -- does not contain information?

And when the observer on Rigel sees the sign, he does not gain information about the sign?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can't see the difference between the two examples, then I'll try to explain it again. But right now you're sounding like a little boy who is sulking because he didn't win.

Aw ....

Remind me again, who is it in this thread that has repeatedly displayed -- and admitted -- her vast ignorance of such topics as philosophy, optics, visual anatomy and physiology, neural physiology, and Special Relativity, among others?

Who has -- despite her demonstrated and confessed ignorance of these subjects -- repeatedly insisted that people who are professionals in the field and vastly more knowledgable than herself on the subject matter, are wrong in their understanding of the subjects?

Who has -- despite being given clear and lavishly-illustrated explanations written on a level that could be understood by any reasonably intelligent junior-high student -- repeatedly declared that she has no intention of educating herself on relevant subject matter?

[Vivisectus]

So efferent vision happens instantly, but there is no information transferred? That is amazing - because then how come I know what you typed if my efferent vision does not get any information off this computer screen?

Think back to paragraph number 1 - proof that efferent vision causes a paradox. If the man on Rigel is not receiving information, then how does he know what the sign says?

[Vivisectus]

bah humbug double up

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course vision involves information transfer, regardless of the "direction we see". Saying it doesn't is incorrect and nonsensical in every way.

If that's your rebuttal, and you won't accept that this has nothing to do with faster than light transmission, then you will believe Lessans was wrong, and there's no changing your mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So ... the sign being held up by the guy on Earth -- the sign with the big number "42" on it -- does not contain information?

And when the observer on Rigel sees the sign, he does not gain information about the sign?

Lone Ranger, we've spent an entire day talking about this. It's all about definition. Seeing is first, processing is second. Seeing the number 42, or anything that is in one's field of vision, is not information until it's processed by the brain.

[peacegirl]

[quote=The Lone Ranger;955984]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can't see the difference between the two examples, then I'll try to explain it again. But right now you're sounding like a little boy who is sulking because he didn't win.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Aw ....

Remind me again, who is it in this thread that has repeatedly displayed -- and admitted -- her vast ignorance of such topics as philosophy, optics, visual anatomy and physiology, neural physiology, and Special Relativity, among others?

Who has -- despite her demonstrated and confessed ignorance of these subjects -- repeatedly insisted that people who are professionals in the field and vastly more knowledgable than herself on the subject matter, are wrong in their understanding of the subjects?

Who has -- despite being given clear and lavishly-illustrated explanations written on a level that could be understood by any reasonably intelligent junior-high student -- repeatedly declared that she has no intention of educating herself on relevant subject matter?

I never said I am more knowledgeable than you on certain subjects, but I am more knowledgeable than you on the subject of my father's book. You haven't read it; yet you act like you know what's in it. Okay, you don't agree with his claims of efferent vision. So why can't you wait until more empirical tests are done? Furthermore, you say I know nothing about philosophy, yet you can't even explain the two-sided equation which is based on a philosophical subject. So who is the one deficient here? It's very easy to put someone down when he's already the underdog. Anybody can do that, but it doesn't change the facts, and the facts are not in yet.

[Vivisectus]

Ok. So it takes a millisecond for the brain to process information from 800 lightyears away, so in stead of infinitely faster than light, the information has travelled slightly less than infinitely faster than light.

That does not change the fact it leads to a paradox. Special relativity says it cannot happen faster than light at all. 800 lightyears per millisecond still leads to a paradox - and so does any other information transfer that is faster than light, which would happen in any model of instant or near instant vision.

So no, it is not about definition, unless you count your own special definition which is "True = anything my father said was true"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So efferent vision happens instantly, but there is no information transferred? That is amazing - because then how come I know what you typed if my efferent vision does not get any information off this computer screen?

I didn't say efferent vision doesn't get information; it just doesn't get information faster than light would transmit that information. The eyes see what's there (no transmission); the brain processes. It's two pronged, which I said before. How many times do I have to repeat this for you to get it?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Think back to paragraph number 1 - proof that efferent vision causes a paradox. If the man on Rigel is not receiving information, then how does he know what the sign says?

Because it takes a nano-second for the brain to process what it sees Vivisectus. There is no paradox.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say efferent vision doesn't get information; it just doesn't get information faster than light would transmit that information. The eyes see what's there (no transmission); the brain processes. It's two pronged, which I said before. How many times do I have to repeat this for you to get it?

LOL ok so we see it instantly, but it takes 1 second per light-second of distance to process the information? So the brain interprets things that are close by faster than things that are far away? Please remember we can see things that are hundreds of lightyears away with the naked eye.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Think back to paragraph number 1 - proof that efferent vision causes a paradox. If the man on Rigel is not receiving information, then how does he know what the sign says?

Because it takes a nano-second for the brain to process what it sees Vivisectus. There is no paradox.[/QUOTE]


But he is receiving it at a speed of 800 lightyears per nanosecond - faster than light. And so it STILL leads to a paradox.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok. So it takes a millisecond for the brain to process information from 800 lightyears away, so in stead of infinitely faster than light, the information has travelled slightly less than infinitely faster than light.

You are using the definition of afferent vision to understand efferent vision. It will seem impossible if you believe that what you're seeing hasn't arrived yet. That does sound crazy. That would be like knowing what is going to be said before it's said. Or seeing a supernova before it explodes. But that's not what efferent vision is. It's seeing what's there to be seen. You can't see something if it's too far away. That's physics, and there is no argument there. What is being contested is the belief that our eyes work exactly like a camera that use lightwaves to create a picture instead of seeing the actual picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That does not change the fact it leads to a paradox. Special relativity says it cannot happen faster than light at all. 800 lightyears per millisecond still leads to a paradox - and so does any other information transfer that is faster than light, which would happen in any model of instant or near instant vision.

So no, it is not about definition, unless you count your own special definition which is "True = anything my father said was true"

It's not about my own special definition. It's falsifiable, which means it can be proved or disproved. So everyone is going to have to be patient because we're not going to get the answer in here.

[Vivisectus]

stupid button

[Vivisectus]

Nope, that is not it at all. I am merely pointing out that this involves the faster then light transfer of information, which leads to a paradox. You are weaseling again.

It's not about my own special definition. It's falsifiable, which means it can be disproved or proved.

And it has now been falsified. You just ignore all evidence to that effect, as usual.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, how long does it take for the observer on Rigel to acquire the information that somebody on Earth is holding up a sign that reads "42"?

[LadyShea]

Information being transferred between Rigel and the Earth (as per Lessans example) in less than 700-800 years denies that time is relative

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

LOL ok so we see it instantly, but it takes 1 second per light-second of distance to process the information? So the brain interprets things that are close by faster than things that are far away? Please remember we can see things that are hundreds of lightyears away with the naked eye.

Because it takes a nano-second for the brain to process what it sees Vivisectus. There is no paradox.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But he is receiving it at a speed of 800 lightyears per nanosecond - faster than light. And so it STILL leads to a paradox.

How can there be speed involved if we're not receiving any images from the light itself? Yes, we can see the image if the light is focussed on a wall, similar to a laser, but that image does not penetrate the eye.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said I am more knowledgeable than you on certain subjects, but I am more knowledgeable than you on the subject of my father's book.

Maybe. That's not demonstrated.

Regardless, you are ignorant -- profoundly so -- of relevant subject matter which directly contradicts your claims.

Okay, you don't agree with his claims of efferent vision. So why can't you wait until more empirical tests are done?

Because, you willful ignoramus, they have been done -- many, many times. I've dissected and examined eyes; I know how they're put together, and I know how the optic nerve is constructed. It's totally incompatible with your claims.

Never mind the fact that efferent vision has been soundly disproved (remember, the original experimenters thought that vision was efferent -- their own experiments disproved it) many, many times in many different ways.

That you deliberately choose to keep yourself ignorant of this fact makes you look very foolish indeed.

Anybody can do that, but it doesn't change the facts, and the facts are not in yet.

Ah, but they most-definitely are. That you choose to put your fingers in your ears and repeatedly cry "No they aren't!" makes you look ever more foolish.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Information being transferred between Rigel and the Earth (as per Lessans example) in less than 700-800 years denies that time is relative

Not from my perspective LadyShea. Someone can see an event quite differently than someone else due to their relative positions, and still see that event in real time. I know David hates when I say that, but I don't see the conflict.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can there be speed involved if we're not receiving any images from the light itself? Yes, we can see the image if the light is focussed on a wall, similar to a laser, but that image does not penetrate the eye.

The definition of "speed" is the time that it takes for something to travel a certain distance. That's why it is measured in units of distance per time -- as in miles per hour.

The information "someone is holding up a sign that reads '42'" originates on Earth. If the observer on Rigel sees it, this means that information has somehow gotten from Earth to Rigel. The distance that information traveled divided by the time it took for the observer to acquire that information is the speed of information transfer.

Note that it doesn't matter in the slightest how the information traveled between Earth and Rigel.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would love someone who is already a teacher to help me because she would be more familar with this type of format.

I taught Jr. HS for 7 years, but I left teaching in '76, so I might be a bit out of date. I have also had children in school, so I know the program from several angles.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said I am more knowledgeable than you on certain subjects, but I am more knowledgeable than you on the subject of my father's book.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Maybe. That's not demonstrated.

You don't understand the first thing about this book.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Regardless, you are ignorant -- profoundly so -- of relevant subject matter which directly contradicts your claims.

Okay, you don't agree with his claims of efferent vision. So why can't you wait until more empirical tests are done?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Because, you willful ignoramus, they have been done -- many, many times. I've dissected and examined eyes; I know how they're put together, and I know how the optic nerve is constructed. It's totally incompatible with your claims.


Never mind the fact that efferent vision has been soundly disproved (remember, the original experimenters thought that vision was efferent -- their own experiments disproved it) many, many times in many different ways.

I don't appreciate being called names Lone Ranger. Don't you have self-control? Please don't force me to put you on ignore. I don't know of any experiments that have disproved efferent vision.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That you deliberately choose to keep yourself ignorant of this fact makes you look very foolish indeed.

I'm not deliberately choosing to keep myself ignorant. How many times have I said let's get off of the discussion until more evidence can be accumulated. You say there's enough evidence and forget it. I say there isn't enough evidence and I'm not going to forget it. Until the evidence is in, there's nothing more I can add. Why would you resent me for wanting further testing, even if you believe all the results are in?

Anybody can do that, but it doesn't change the facts, and the facts are not in yet.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Ah, but they most-definitely are. That you choose to put your fingers in your ears and repeatedly cry "No they aren't!" makes you look ever more foolish.

So why are you hanging around? To see how long it takes for me to admit I'm wrong? Ain't gonna happen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The definition of "speed" is the time that it takes for something to travel a certain distance. That's why it is measured in units of distance per time -- as in miles per hour.

The information "someone is holding up a sign that reads '42'" originates on Earth. If the observer on Rigel sees it, this means that information has somehow gotten from Earth to Rigel. The distance that information traveled divided by the time it took for the observer to acquire that information is the speed of information transfer.

Note that it doesn't matter in the slightest how the information traveled between Earth and Rigel.

I don't care whether that information in the lightwaves traveled. That information (coming from the light) didn't penetrate the eye.

[Vivisectus]

So why are you hanging around? To see how long it takes for me to admit I'm wrong? Ain't gonna happen.

At last: your first ever honest answer. No matter how much evidence is piled up, no matter how inescapable the conclusion that it is in fact not true - you will not change your mind. So your belief that vision is efferent is irrational.

Good thing you at least realize it now.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't understand the first thing about this book.

Liar.

So why are you hanging around? To see how long it takes for me to admit I'm wrong? Ain't gonna happen.

Oh, I know very well that you're no more educable than is a rock.

But others can gain useful information from this train wreck of a thread. And I think it's important to point out how much of a dishonest, dissembling, weaseling little liar you are.