A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is a star?

The Pleiades, a cluster of young stars A star is a sphere of gas held together by its own gravity. The force of gravity is continually trying to cause the star to collapse, but this is counteracted by the pressure of hot gas and/or radiation in the star's interior. This is called hydrostatic support. During most of the lifetime of a star, the interior heat and radiation is provided by nuclear reactions near the center, and this phase of the star's life is called the main sequence. Before and after the main sequence, the heat sources differ slightly. Before the main sequence, the star is contracting and is not yet hot enough or dense enough in its interior for the nuclear reactions to begin. During this phase, hydrostatic support is provided by the heat generated during contraction. After the main sequence, most of the nuclear fuel in the core has been used up. The star now requires a series of less-efficient nuclear reactions for internal heat. Eventually, when these reactions no longer generate sufficient heat to support the star against its own gravity, the star will collapse.

Stars

So, your claim is that we see the sphere of gas, not the light it is emitting? Is that what you meant when you said we see the actual star and not the light from the star?

If so, why can we not see things in the universe that do not emit visible light? Why can't we see the "actual" black hole?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What a terrible thing to say to someone who is going to thank your post on the expanding universe.

But knock yourelf out. Go ahead, you post to peacegirl. See how much luck you have in demonstrating reality to her! Let us know how it works out for you!

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;978294]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is a star?

The Pleiades, a cluster of young stars A star is a sphere of gas held together by its own gravity. The force of gravity is continually trying to cause the star to collapse, but this is counteracted by the pressure of hot gas and/or radiation in the star's interior. This is called hydrostatic support. During most of the lifetime of a star, the interior heat and radiation is provided by nuclear reactions near the center, and this phase of the star's life is called the main sequence. Before and after the main sequence, the heat sources differ slightly. Before the main sequence, the star is contracting and is not yet hot enough or dense enough in its interior for the nuclear reactions to begin. During this phase, hydrostatic support is provided by the heat generated during contraction. After the main sequence, most of the nuclear fuel in the core has been used up. The star now requires a series of less-efficient nuclear reactions for internal heat. Eventually, when these reactions no longer generate sufficient heat to support the star against its own gravity, the star will collapse.

Stars

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, your claim is that we see the sphere of gas, not the light it is emitting? Is that what you meant when you said we see the actual star and not the light from the star?

We are getting into subjects that have no relation to Lessans' claim. Of course we would see visible light that the sphere of gas produces. Where does this discredit Lessans' observations?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If so, why can we not see things in the universe that do not emit visible light? Why can't we see the "actual" black hole?

We 'see' them by their gravitational effects upon nearby stars which they are often eating or causing to move at very high velocities just before they enter the black hole. A star cluster that 'weighs' 1 billion times the mass of the Sun, but only has 1 few million stars, and has a very small volume producing lots of energy, is a prime candidate for a black hole. Also, a binary star system where the total mass is 20 solar masses but the only visible star has a mass of 2 solar masses means a dark companion with a mass of 18 solar masses. In other words a black hole.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2461.html

[LadyShea]

I am trying to understand this statement of yours

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are not seeing the light from that star; but rather the actual star.

If we do not see light, that speaks to the mechanism of efferent sight. That has relation to Lessan's claims.

So, what did you mean when you said

We are not seeing the light from that star; but rather the actual star.

Can you explain it or not?

snip cut and paste

I know how science detects black holes. That copy and paste supports my point.

I want to know why we can't see them within the framework of your understanding of efferent vision. You keep claiming we see "actual" objects and images, and not the light.

If that were true, we would be able to see "actual" black holes, with our eyes and telescopes-just like we see the "actual" stars and not the light they emit- rather than simply detect them by observing the effects on things around them.

According to afferent vision, they are invisible because they do not emit visible light and light is how we get the information that becomes a visual image in our brain.

This shouldn't matter with efferent vision, according to your many statements regarding "actual" objects and images and seeing "what is there" to be seen, and what is large enough and bright enough. Black holes are surrounded by stars, there whould be plenty of light "present" to use to see them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, your claim is that we see the sphere of gas, not the light it is emitting? Is that what you meant when you said we see the actual star and not the light from the star?

If so, why can we not see things in the universe that do not emit visible light? Why can't we see the "actual" black hole?

I can feel your effort to prove Lessans wrong, but you're not going to win if he is right. I might be lacking the skill to explain what he knew, but the reality is still there. We can't see things in the universe that do not emit visible light because we cannot see that particular spectrum of light. What are you trying to get at. What are you trying to prove? Why in the world do you keep focusing on light, when this has everything to do with the brain in relation to light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am trying to understand this statement of yours

When I look at you, I am not seeing light that is shining from you. The photons that are reflected are invisible. Do you see photons when you look at somebody?

You admitted we can't see light in a vacuum. There is such a disconnect here I don't know if it can be bridged.

I know how science detects black holes. That copy and paste supports my point.

It supported mine as well.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I want to know why we can't see them within the framework of your understanding of efferent vision. You keep claiming we see "actual" objects and images, and not the light.

Whatever the reason that we can't see a black hole does not in any way negate efferent vision. Sometimes we can't see an actual event because it's hidden, or it's in a spectrum of light that cannot be seen by the naked eye. What are you getting at? What is your point LadyShea?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If that were true, we would be able to see "actual" black holes, with our eyes and telescopes-just like we see the "actual" stars and not the light they emit- rather than simply detect them by observing the effects on things around them.

Not if it's hidden. If the source is hidden, we could detect something from that source. I never said that we could not detect radiation or gravity that comes from that source. This thread has absolutely gone berserk.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to afferent vision, they are invisible because they do not emit visible light and light is how we get the information that becomes a visual image in our brain.

Noooooooo, 1000 times nooooo. They don't emit visible light in which we could see them...granted, but that does not mean that we can't get information from them from other sources. This is crazy LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This shouldn't matter with efferent vision, according to your many statements regarding "actual" objects and images and seeing "what is there" to be seen, and what is large enough and bright enough. Black holes are surrounded by stars, there whould be plenty of light "present" to use to see them.

Not if they are hidden or beyond our ability to see them. That doesn't mean they aren't there.

[Vivisectus]

Peacegirl, you are now more or less answering at random. The reason this happens is because for you, your father being wrong is something you are not even willing to contemplate. You assume he is right first, and then work back from that. If reality proves him wrong, there must be something wrong with reality.

You are even beginning to contradict yourself - first light is dependent on its source for existence, then it isn't, then it is again. We cannot see light at first, and then we can.

You are ignoring certain points entirely: The light from stars comes from places where the stars aren't anymore, and yet we do not see the light in one place and the star in another. Nor are the actual stars, seen instantly and efferently in their correct position, invisible to cameras. Also, we can easily take a photograph of Shea even if our backs are turned to her or if she is around a corner.

Now you are even beginning to say things like "I can see your effort to prove him wrong, but if he is right, you will not win" - which is nothing short of saying "I have no answer to your arguments, but I am not going to change my mind anyway".

The correctness if all this is an item of faith for you. I think it is foolish. Efferent sight is not required to support the rest of your fathers ideas at all. We already know that the image that ends up in the brain is not a direct representation of what we see, but rather a model put together by the brain, made up of hundreds of small packages of visual information. If only he had deigned to actually study the subject he was making such bold statements about, he would have seen that.

Since we know that what we see is for a considerable part made up by the brain, his ideas about beauty, for instance, are easily explained without having to resort to outlandish ideas about sight. In fact every single reason he had for thinking sight efferent is explained by the way our brain processes visual information.

Leaving this idea in here in it's current form, with masses of evidence against it, no mechanism by which it works, not even an observation that makes us think there is anything wrong about the afferent model, and not a shred of evidence in its favor, is not wise. It turns the whole book into a laughing-stock, and it discredits you as well as you will look foolish trying to defend it. If you want people to seriously consider the book as a whole, you have to either support efferent sight with something more tangible, (even some really good thought-experiments might help here!) or abandon this part of it. You can easily leave his conclusions - what we see is not just what is there, but for a large part it is what we are conditioned to see - and then support this notion with actual current research on how our brain comes up with the images we end up experiencing.

You have right here a perfectly viable solution - you can retain the essence of what your father was trying to say, and which was the reason he felt a new model of sight was necessary in the first place, and avoid people rejecting him because of his ideas about sight.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can feel your effort to prove Lessans wrong, but you're not going to win if he is right.

If he was wrong, then I am right. You do that a lot, you know. You say "If Lessans was right....". That if means there is a question. This discussion is trying to answer that question.

I might be lacking the skill to explain what he knew, but the reality is still there.

He seems to have not known much about light and time, yet he made claims about them. The reality is still there, yes. That is what we are discussing.

We can't see things in the universe that do not emit visible light because we cannot see that particular spectrum of light.

From Lessans words and your explanations, the visible spectrum should have nothing to do with whether we can see something if sight is efferent because, according to both of you, we somehow use light to see, but we don't see light.

What are you trying to get at. What are you trying to prove? Why in the world do you keep focusing on light, when this has everything to do with the brain in relation to light?

Because he made claims about light and time that do not seem to fit in reality, so I want you to support those claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I look at you, I am not seeing light that is shining from you. The photons that are reflected are invisible. Do you see photons when you look at somebody?

The light enters our eyes and the information it contains is converted to an image in our brain.

You admitted we can't see light in a vacuum.

No I didn't. I said atmospheric phenomena doesn't account for our ability to see light in space. We see the light from stars and galaxies using the space telescopes.

I said exactly what I meant. We are not seeing a replica of the star. We might see light that is coming from the star, just like we see lightning that has traveled through space and time. But we don't see photons. I swear I don't know how to explain this any better.

You can't explain it because it contradicts what you believe to be true.

All I have asked you is if we can see light itself, and you have repeatedly stated that no, we see the "actual" object, we see the "actual" image, yet you cannot explain what the "actual" object is when whatever we are discussing is ONLY light.

There is no "actual" object called a rainbow. It is only refracted light. So just admit that we can, and do, see light itself and we can move on.

No, it contradicts your point that "we don't see light, we use light to see". If you are correct, we should see the "actual" black hole

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever the reason that we can't see a black hole does not in any way negate efferent vision.

It contradicts efferent vision if efferent vision claims we cannot see light itself, as you have stated many times.

Sometimes we can't see an actual event because it's hidden, or it's in a spectrum of light that cannot be seen by the naked eye. What are you getting at? What is your point LadyShea?

So, you now admit we can and do see light itself?

Not if it's hidden. If the source is hidden, we could detect something from that source.

Oh a new word to define and explain, hidden black holes. Hidden by what? Hidden how?

I never said that we could not detect radiation or gravity that comes from that source. This thread has absolutely gone berserk.

You said we cannot see light itself, so the absence of reflected or emitted light in the visible spectrum should not affect our ability to see something according to you.

I know we can get indirect information about them. I want to know why we can't see them if we do not need visible light being emitted or reflected from the "actual" object in order to see it.

We only need light "present" remember?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This shouldn't matter with efferent vision, according to your many statements regarding "actual" objects and images and seeing "what is there" to be seen, and what is large enough and bright enough. Black holes are surrounded by stars, there whould be plenty of light "present" to use to see them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not if they are hidden or beyond our ability to see them. That doesn't mean they aren't there.

So now we have a new twist, "hidden" giant objects. Hidden how? Black holes are surrounded by stars, there is plenty of light "present", they are enormous (far bigger than the stars surrounding them that we can see). Where are they hiding?

[ZEZOZE]

it's light.

what's wrong with believing it's all these things?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

it's light.

what's wrong with believing it's all these things?

There is no problem at all if it is just an article of faith. I have said now for some time that it is. But then it must be admitted that it is a religious position, not a scientific one.

[ZEZOZE]

yeah, but light is just light. the only thing separating science from faith is the equipment used to measure.

light's just gonna keep lighting.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

yeah, but light is just light. the only thing separating science from faith is the equipment used to measure.

light's just gonna keep lighting.

That just goes to show that if you open your mind too much, your brain falls out.

Tell you what - you get your God to re-grow an amputated leg, and I will concede that science is just faith plus a calculator.

[ZEZOZE]

there is science and then there is the application of science.

we can't help but be religious about things. sometimes science is just a machine that goes ping and homilies of numbers. science often makes grand claims about things it will never know.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have right here a perfectly viable solution - you can retain the essence of what your father was trying to say, and which was the reason he felt a new model of sight was necessary in the first place, and avoid people rejecting him because of his ideas about sight.

Peacegirl, Vivisectus is right. I think you need to cool it on trying to present your father's work as science. Presenting it as philosophy may be the better route. Thus efferent vision goes from a scientific concept to a philosophical concept. The reality of a philosophical concept is not important to philosophy since if the mind can think it then it exists philosophically.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

there is science and then there is the application of science.

we can't help but be religious about things. sometimes science is just a machine that goes ping and homilies of numbers. science often makes grand claims about things it will never know.

Science is evidently not alone in that.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl, Vivisectus is right. I think you need to cool it on trying to present your father's work as science. Presenting it as philosophy may be the better route. Thus efferent vision goes from a scientific concept to a philosophical concept. The reality of a philosophical concept is not important to philosophy since if the mind can think it then it exists philosophically.

That would be a good idea - efferent sight as a concept to confer the idea that what we are seeing is not the reality, but a representation of that reality. To a certain extent we manufacture that reality ourselves according to our conditioning. It has 2 great advantages: it avoids the very real conflict with science. More than that, it is actually supported by quite a lot of research on how the brain processes visual information.

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Science is evidently not alone in that.

indeed. we are religious creatures.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

indeed. we are religious creatures.

Not religious per se. Rather Mytho-poetic. Religion is where we abdicate responsibility for what we dream up to something we have dreamed up. Science is where we don't.

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not religious per se. Rather Mytho-poetic. Religion is where we abdicate responsibility for what we dream up to something we have dreamed up. Science is where we don't.

no. i'd say religious. religion is about behaviour and conformity. you can be religious about real things.

science should have nothing to do with religion. again- it's all in the application. we can't help ourselves. for some, science has become the dogma of the no-god.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, you are now more or less answering at random. The reason this happens is because for you, your father being wrong is something you are not even willing to contemplate. You assume he is right first, and then work back from that. If reality proves him wrong, there must be something wrong with reality.

You are even beginning to contradict yourself - first light is dependent on its source for existence, then it isn't, then it is again. We cannot see light at first, and then we can.

I already said there is a disconnect here. There is a difference between seeing the sun, and seeing sunlight that is made up of photons. We can't see photons; we can only see their effects.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are ignoring certain points entirely: The light from stars comes from places where the stars aren't anymore, and yet we do not see the light in one place and the star in another. Nor are the actual stars, seen instantly and efferently in their correct position, invisible to cameras. Also, we can easily take a photograph of Shea even if our backs are turned to her or if she is around a corner.

I already said that the fact that the stars are not invisible to cameras only means the light from that source has been detected. That you can turn your back and easily get a picture has no bearing on the fact that light reflecting off of her is necessary for a picture to be developed. You cannot take a picture of light, which is the supposition when we talk about seeing the past. The way the light bends doesn't enter into it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Now you are even beginning to say things like "I can see your effort to prove him wrong, but if he is right, you will not win" - which is nothing short of saying "I have no answer to your arguments, but I am not going to change my mind anyway".

Nothing anyone has said has proven him wrong as far as I can see. I might not be able to answer all the physics questions that are thrown at me but that does not mean his observations are inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The correctness if all this is an item of faith for you. I think it is foolish. Efferent sight is not required to support the rest of your fathers ideas at all.

I never said it did.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We already know that the image that ends up in the brain is not a direct representation of what we see, but rather a model put together by the brain, made up of hundreds of small packages of visual information. If only he had deigned to actually study the subject he was making such bold statements about, he would have seen that.

That is the model of sight that is being challenged. To just repeat what is believed to be happening is not proof. Whether science has it right is still an open question that needs more investigation. You might think it's a closed book, but I don't.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Since we know that what we see is for a considerable part made up by the brain, his ideas about beauty, for instance, are easily explained without having to resort to outlandish ideas about sight. In fact every single reason he had for thinking sight efferent is explained by the way our brain processes visual information.

I don't think that's true. Please read this excerpt again because he shows what the brain is capable of doing due to the projection of words onto the screen of undeniable substance.

From the time we were small children our relatives, parents,
friends and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and
dislikes regarding things that definitely exist in the external world.
The words beautiful, pretty, cute, adorable, handsome, etc., heard over
and over again with an inflection of pleasure as to someone’s physical
appearance, took a picture of the similarities between this type of
physiognomy and developed negatives which also contained the degree
of feeling experienced.

Similarly, an entire range of words heard over
and over again with an inflection of displeasure as to someone’s
physical characteristics, took a picture of the similarities between this
type of physiognomy and developed negatives containing the degree
of feeling experienced below this line of demarcation. As time went
on a standard was established which separated good looks from bad
looks using a gradient that measured someone’s features against a
scale of perfection that did not symbolize reality.

Not knowing what
the brain was able to do, we were convinced that one group of
similarities that were seen with our very eyes contained a lesser value
than the opposite similarities. We were unaware that the brain had
reversed the process by which these negatives were developed and then
projected onto the screen of undeniable differences a value that existed
only in our head. It would not be long before this child would be
conditioned to desire associating with the one type while avoiding the
other, and as he would get older you would not be able to convince
him that an ugly or beautiful person did not exist as a definite part of
the real world, because he has witnessed these differences with his
eyes. The confusion between what is real and what is not comes from
the fact that these words not only describe real differences that exist
in the world, but they also create external values when there are no
such things. I will give you an example of this by using a movie
projector.

Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it. I
am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the
switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall.
But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl
is not there. We have been doing the same thing with our brain
regarding values.

The differences in substance were not only divided
up by the use of words like man, woman, child, etc., but became a
screen upon which we were able to project this value. Drop a negative
plate or word slide in your brain projector and flip the switch. Well
just take a look, there is now a beautiful girl, a homely man, an ugly
duckling! Turn off the switch (remove the negative plate or word
slide) and all you see are the differences in substance because the
projected values have been removed. Since we were taught that the
eyes receive and transmit sense experience on the waves of light it was
impossible to deny that this beautiful girl actually existed and was a
part of the real world; and when we changed the standard hidden in
the word, all we did was change the screen. By saying that this person
may not be beautiful physically but has a beautiful soul, we were
allowed to see ugly souls as if they, too, existed externally.

Scientists,
believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed
what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was
possible to project a fallacious relation realistically. Consequently
everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through
which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if
the relation which is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an
inaccurate negative which is then projected realistically upon
undeniable substance.

The word ‘beautiful’ has absolutely no external
reality and yet because it is learned in association with a particular
physiognomy a beautiful girl is created, when no such person exists.
Obviously there is a difference between the shape and features of
individuals but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals
that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected
through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied — which
makes the projection appear real.

By having the words beautiful, ugly,
gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector through which the brain
will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain
specific differences only because of the words which is then confirmed
as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful
women with his eyes, but in actual reality all he sees are different
shapes and different features. This so-called beautiful girl is not
striking his optic nerve which then allows him to see her beauty but
instead he projects the word onto these differences and then
photographs a fallacious relation.

The brain records all relations,
whether true or false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact
that man had five senses which were connected in some way with the
external world and since four of these were accurately described as
sense organs, that is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was
very easy for Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further
investigation by including the eyes in the definition, which he did only
because he never understood their true function.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Leaving this idea in here in it's current form, with masses of evidence against it, no mechanism by which it works, not even an observation that makes us think there is anything wrong about the afferent model, and not a shred of evidence in its favor, is not wise. It turns the whole book into a laughing-stock, and it discredits you as well as you will look foolish trying to defend it. If you want people to seriously consider the book as a whole, you have to either support efferent sight with something more tangible, (even some really good thought-experiments might help here!) or abandon this part of it. You can easily leave his conclusions - what we see is not just what is there, but for a large part it is what we are conditioned to see - and then support this notion with actual current research on how our brain comes up with the images we end up experiencing.

I will not just leave his observations as if they mean nothing. If he is right, why would you want me to abandon them? Because it makes you more comfortable to leave science alone, even if there are possible flaws? I didn't want to get into this subject again. I already knew the backlash that was going to happen.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have right here a perfectly viable solution - you can retain the essence of what your father was trying to say, and which was the reason he felt a new model of sight was necessary in the first place, and avoid people rejecting him because of his ideas about sight.

I really don't want to talk about sight anymore for that very reason. If people are going to smirk and reject his other two discoveries because of his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ, it would be very unfortunate indeed. So let's get off of this subject, okay?

[But]

Wow, 400 pages.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot take a picture of light, which is the supposition when we talk about seeing the past.

Of course you can. All that eyes and cameras are doing is take pictures of light.

Let's imagine empty space with nothing inside it except light of a certain colour, say red. Add an astronaut in a spacesuit and a camera. She is pointing the camera somewhere in the direction the light is coming from and takes a picture. What is this a picture of?

[Vivisectus]

I already said there is a disconnect here. There is a difference between seeing the sun, and seeing sunlight that is made up of photons. We can't see photons; we can only see their effects

.

Either we detect them, or they are in some way required to see things, but are not intrumental in conveying the information. If the latter it true, then we would expect certain things: a light-detector would see things differently from us. However, this is not what we see in reality.

I already said that the fact that the stars are not invisible to cameras only means the light from that source has been detected. That you can turn your back and easily get a picture has no bearing on the fact that light reflecting off of her is necessary for a picture to be developed. You cannot take a picture of light, which is the supposition when we talk about seeing the past. The way the light bends doesn't enter into it.

It is not necessary - it is the only thing required to take a picture. And yes, we can take a picture of light. It is what a camera does - it translates light into an image. It even works both ways! We can photopgraph a TV screen, which does nothing but emit light. You see, the very fact that the evidence against it is so abundant and everyday that makes your refusal to admit it a bit silly. I know you are very invested in it, but it will not help the actual ideas one bit. How is anybody supposed to believe this, and the rest of the world, when everyone has everyday machines that prove the opposite sitting in their houses?

Nothing anyone has said has proven him wrong as far as I can see. I might not be able to answer all the physics questions that are thrown at me but that does not mean his observations are inaccurate.

Both physics and simple, everyday things prove efferent vision wrong. It is just that you refuse to admit it, and resort to vague handwaving about fields of view, hazy redefinitions of image, and self-contradictory explanations. I think even you would be surprised if we went back and observed how many times you have changed your explanations in this thread.

I never said it did.

Then why hang on to what was clearly a leap too far?

That is the model of sight that is being challenged. To just repeat what is believed to be happening is not proof. Whether science has it right is still an open question that needs more investigation. You might think it's a closed book, but I don't.

I just think that efferent sight does not stand up to scrutiny. None of the things we would expect to see i fit where true are there to be observed, things that could not happen if it were true happen nonetheless, and it is not internally consistent. All these things are hallmarks of a hypothesis that fails and should be abandoned.

I don't think that's true. Please read this excerpt again because he shows what the brain is capable of doing due to the projection of words onto the screen of undeniable substance.

That seems to be a rather clumsy description of conditioning and value-attribution. Typically he claims the Scientists (!) fell for this hook line and sinker, somehow, although I know of few scientists who are not aware of the subjectivity of values.

All he is trying to say is that while many values are treated as absolutes, they are not. We learn to attribute them from our families, societies, etc.

Efferent sight is not required for this at all, nor is it required to invoke a "screen of undeniable substance". What is that supposed to be, anyway?


[

I will not just leave his observations as if they mean nothing. If he is right, why would you want me to abandon them? Because it makes you more comfortable to leave science alone, even if there are possible flaws? I didn't want to get into this subject again. I already knew the backlash that was going to happen.

His observations where mainly about human nature, and on that subject everyone can be an expert, just because they are human themselves. Wading deep into physics and making bold unsupported statements about a subject of which he knew nothing is going to make him look stupid.

I really don't want to talk about sight anymore for that very reason. If people are going to smirk and reject his other two discoveries because of his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ, it would be very unfortunate indeed. So let's get off of this subject, okay?

But now we come to the second problem - why would I trust you not to see the rest of his discoveries in the same fundamentalist religious light? Why have a discussion with someone who is unable to concede she is wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence? You discredit yourself as well as your father by refusing to cede even the smallest error in these ideas, even if they are obvious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Wow, 400 pages.

Of course you can. All that eyes and cameras are doing is take pictures of light.

Let's imagine empty space with nothing inside it except light of a certain colour, say red. Add an astronaut in a spacesuit and a camera. She is pointing the camera somewhere in the direction the light is coming from and takes a picture. What is this a picture of?

We will see the color red, but we will never get a picture of an event from the past. The color red is a present condition; Columbus discovering America is not. A camera has never taken a picture of light that developed into a picture that occurred hundreds of years ago.

[LadyShea]

The color red, in space, is an indicator of the distance the light has traveled, the speed and direction at which the source is traveling, and therefore the length of time it has traveled. See Red Shift

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl, Vivisectus is right. I think you need to cool it on trying to present your father's work as science. Presenting it as philosophy may be the better route. Thus efferent vision goes from a scientific concept to a philosophical concept. The reality of a philosophical concept is not important to philosophy since if the mind can think it then it exists philosophically.

Naturalist.atheist, I appreciate your input, but if this is merely philosophy it changes the import of what he's demonstrating. If it truly is scientific, why diminish this knowledge just so people won't be upset with me? He put his hands on the chopping block (so to speak) for this knowledge. It would not be ethical for me to change it in any way. People are entitled to think what they want; but I need to keep his work intact and not delete or change what took him years to put into words.