A revolution in thought

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to read your links to know that there is nothing in them that can negate a necessary truth.

What a fucking hypocrite. You make me sick.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Specious_reasons, there is no part of this book that has been proved false by empirical testing. The test that was supposed to prove that dogs could recognize their handler from a picture was far from reliable. What other empirical tests are you referring to?

Clown car?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why would it not? Efferent vision doesn't change the property of light or the fact that light must strike the lens for a picture to be taken.

Ah so camera's ARE afferent then. We had some difficulty clearing this up earlier.

In that case, why can we not see supernova's as they happen, which is a long time before we can photograph them?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

What a fucking hypocrite. You make me sick.

Goodbye Sidhe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Didn't I already say that you refuse to admit it? Why bother rehashing hundreds of pages of posts only to have you refuse the evidence again?

Real time, efferent vision is false. Period. It was disproven empirically before Lessans even wrote his book. You are incapable of understanding why and it's pointless to remind you. Simply re-read this thread to remind yourself of the dozens of ways it's been proved wrong. Better yet, go read The Lone Ranger's post you have so far ignored. I will not waste more time on your willful stupidity.

I didn't ask you to post here. I said all along that there is one aspect of the afferent model of sight that is not conclusive, in my opinion, and that is the point at which photons are tranduced into electro-chemical signals that are then decoded by the brain into an image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah so camera's ARE afferent then. We had some difficulty clearing this up earlier.

In that case, why can we not see supernova's as they happen, which is a long time before we can photograph them?

There is still confusion here. If a fire starts two miles away and it's too far to see, it is obvious that we can only see the fire when it gets closer to us. If any kind of explosion occurs that is too far away to be seen (such as a supernova), as the explosion travels closer to us we will be able to see it (efferently) because it is now within our field of vision. What I am talking about is light emanating from an object or image, which, according to afferent vision, is what we are seeing, even when the light source has been destroyed. Smoke travels, so we would still see the remnants if the fire was put out, but we would not see a supernova millions of light years away from light itself because that light is not being converted into an image in the brain.

[Vivisectus]

...and yet you refuse to even learn what the current thinking on it is? We have studied this extensively: the mechanics of sight from the eye into the brain is relatively well known. It is what the brain does with these images that is much more interesting.

I feel bad that your father never got a proper education in these things. He would have found that there is much, much more of interest to be learned. And to make the point he wanted to make - that seeing is something we do, putting a picture together, and that we do not just passively record - is very easy to support with good, decent science in stead of this whole efferent seeing twaddle.

[Vivisectus]

the dreaded double poast!

[Vivisectus]

There is still confusion here. If a fire starts two miles away and it's too far to see, it is obvious that we can only see the fire when it gets closer to us. If any kind of explosion occurs that is too far away to be seen (such as a supernova), as the explosion travels closer to us we will be able to see it (efferently) because it is now within our field of vision. What I am talking about is light emanating from an object or image, which, according to afferent vision, is what we are seeing, even when the light source has been destroyed. Smoke travels, so we would still see the remnants if the fire was put out, but we would not see a supernova millions of light years away from light itself because that light is not being converted into an image in the brain.

Supernovas do not travel. They stay in one spot. The light they produce does travel though.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't ask you to post here.

I didn't ask you to post, either. So, what? We're even now?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said all along that there is one aspect of the afferent model of sight that is not conclusive, in my opinion, and that is the point at which photons are tranduced into electro-chemical signals that are then decoded by the brain into an image.

Your opinion is worthless when it comes to scientific matters.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...and yet you refuse to even learn what the current thinking on it is? We have studied this extensively: the mechanics of sight from the eye into the brain is relatively well known. It is what the brain does with these images that is much more interesting.

I feel bad that your father never got a proper education in these things. He would have found that there is much, much more of interest to be learned. And to make the point he wanted to make - that seeing is something we do, putting a picture together, and that we do not just passively record - is very easy to support with good, decent science in stead of this whole efferent seeing twaddle.

This isn't about what is more interesting Vivisectus. This is about reality whether it's interesting or not. Seeing objective reality does not remove our perceptions based on our life experiences. We don't just passively record. Just saying good decent science supports afferent vision without carefully considering that science could have gotten a part of it wrong, is just as bad as asserting something is true without an explanation as to why it is true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I didn't ask you to post, either. So, what? We're even now?

Your opinion is worthless when it comes to scientific matters.

Then why don't you leave this thread and shut the door behind you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Supernovas do not travel. They stay in one spot. The light they produce does travel though.

At least you're getting a little bit of what I am saying. You cannot see light; you can see an image of the light source that the reflective light produces (e.g., the laser pen example), but you cannot interpret an image from that same light within the brain itself, if Lessans' claims are correct.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At least you're getting a little bit of what I am saying. You cannot see light; you can see the image of an object like the laser pen example, but you do not interpret the image from light itself within the brain.

Try paraphrasing that. I think you will find you are contradicting yourself and getting mixed up. Either we somehow detect the image directly, or we merely detect the light - it cannot be both.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why don't you leave this thread and shut the door behind you.

No, because I have an unhealthy fascination with crap. Lessans book fascinates me, and your defense of it is equally so.

Unfortunately, there hasn't been a whole lot new for quite a while. I feel like Wheatley in Portal 2 - the itch isn't being scratched anymore - there's no reason to rehash existing arguments that show real time efferent vision is false. I still read the thread in case someone else comes up with something interesting for you to react to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Try paraphrasing that. I think you will find you are contradicting yourself and getting mixed up. Either we somehow detect the image directly, or we merely detect the light - it cannot be both.

We're talking about efferent vision. We can detect the image coming from the light externally, but we are not interpreting or decoding that same light to create an image in the brain, which is internal. It's not that difficult.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

No, because I have an unhealthy fascination with crap. Lessans book fascinates me, and your defense of it is equally so.

Unfortunately, there hasn't been a whole lot new for quite a while. I feel like Wheatley in Portal 2 - the itch isn't being scratched anymore - there's no reason to rehash existing arguments that show real time efferent vision is false. I still read the thread in case someone else comes up with something interesting for you to react to.

This is not a circus show.

[LadyShea]

Sure it is

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're talking about efferent vision. We can detect the image coming from the light externally, but we are not interpreting or decoding that same light to create an image in the brain, which is internal. It's not that difficult.

again - try to detangle that word-salad. You will find you have actually said nothing that makes sense. Either we somehow detect the image directly and instantly like the book claims, or not. It cannot be both.

Are you trying to say that sight works exactly as if it is afferent, right up to the moment it hits the eye? Or right up until that other idiosyncratic idea of yours, "field of vision?", which in stead of an angle (as it is used in optics) is used to denote a distance?

Are you noticing what eye-watering mental contortionism you are attempting just so you don't have to admit to the slightest flaw in this work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're talking about efferent vision. We can detect the image coming from the light externally, but we are not interpreting or decoding that same light to create an image in the brain, which is internal. It's not that difficult.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

again - try to detangle that word-salad. You will find you have actually said nothing that makes sense. Either we somehow detect the image directly and instantly like the book claims, or not. It cannot be both.

I never said it's both. I said we see efferently, which means that we can see an image of an object after the light has traveled, but we are not decoding that same image the brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Are you trying to say that sight works exactly as if it is afferent, right up to the moment it hits the eye? Or right up until that other idiosyncratic idea of yours, "field of vision?", which in stead of an angle (as it is used in optics) is used to denote a distance?

No, I am not saying that at all. There is no such thing as afferent vision if Lessans is correct. I'm not sure what you mean by "which instead of an angle as used in optics, is used to denote a distance."

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Are you noticing what eye-watering mental contortionism you are attempting just so you don't have to admit to the slightest flaw in this work?

There is no contortionism, just confusion with the terms.

[Vivisectus]

I never said it's both. I said we see efferently, which means that we can see an image of an object after the light has traveled, but we are not decoding that same image the brain.

So.... Everything works exactly like afferent vision, right up to the moment the light hits the eyes, then we see the last bit efferently? Or does it start working efferently further out?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So.... Everything works exactly like afferent vision, right up to the moment the light hits the eyes, then we see the last bit efferently? Or does it start working efferently further out?

Light has definite properties. Light travels with certain frequencies and wavelengths as the object reflects that light that is now traversing a certain distance. We can therefore see an image of that object across a large expanse because the light has traveled to that destination. BUT WE ARE NOT INTERPRETING THOSE IMAGES IN OUR BRAIN; WE ARE SEEING THOSE IMAGES DIRECTLY (OR EFFERENTLY). It is assumed that we would see the image of an event or object in the light itself, which is why it is believed we would see Columbus discovering America even though the actual event is over. This is not true if Lessans is correct because we are able to see the present only, not the past.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BUT WE ARE NOT INTERPRETING THOSE IMAGES IN OUR BRAIN; WE ARE SEEING THOSE IMAGES DIRECTLY (OR EFFERENTLY).

HOW, asshat?

BY WHAT METHOD?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

HOW, asshat?

BY WHAT METHOD?

I will never talk to you if you continue calling me names. You're defeating yourself because you're doing nothing to further the discussion.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has definite properties. Light travels with certain frequencies and wavelengths as the object reflects that light that is now traversing a certain distance. We can therefore see an image of that object across a large expanse because the light has traveled to that destination. BUT WE ARE NOT INTERPRETING THOSE IMAGES IN OUR BRAIN; WE ARE SEEING THOSE IMAGES DIRECTLY (OR EFFERENTLY). It is assumed that we would see the image of an event or object in the light itself, which is why it is believed we would see Columbus discovering America even though the actual event is over. This is not true if Lessans is correct because we are able to see the present only, not the past.

ok - so light bounces off an object and travels to us. When that light reaches us, we can see the object, but we see that object instantly and as it is in that moment of time?

The odd thing is that that means that if a star 2 lightyears away, and that begins to burn, but burns for only 1 lightyear it would send us a years worth of light, and yet would never be visible! It would not exist and have light reach us at the same time.

Also, and more amazingly, that would mean that we should be able to see stars that no longer exist wink out of existence at the very moment they go out - but invisible light would continue to reach us for many, many more years! Or rather, we should see a ray of light but no star!

I could travel 30 light minutes away, and flash a flashlight at an observer on earth. Then, I quickly run to the side - and magically, the flashes of light come from besides me, not from where I am, bacause the light from my flashlight never reached him until then!

Even better - I can be 2 lightyears away, on a well-established lightsource. An observer can see me hold up a sign. Because he can see me, and can read the sign I am holding up, the knowledge of what is on my sign reaches him infinitely faster than the speed of light could ever carry a message.

This means it is theoretically possible for me to be holding up an answer to a question he has not asked yet!