A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Quite the contrary, a world in which instantaneous seeing were possible would be so radically different from our own that it's doubtful it could have sentient observers at all. In such a world, the theory of relativity would be false, E=MC2 would be a false equation and there would be no atomic energy. Moreover, in such a world, there would be no night sky! It would be completely white (see Obler's Paradox). Many other consequences can be deduced as well. Life as we know it could not exist.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His response was probably meant to be sarcastic, but I was agreeing that the purpose of a microscope is to gather light so that the specimen can be observed. It then becomes bright enough (enough light is present) and large enough (through the magnification process) to be seen. This supports efferent vision.

Microscopy is another technology which relies on the understanding that an image is formed by light striking the retina. There are observable phenomenon which don't make sense with your understanding of efferent vision. I hesitate to point them out because I really don't want to read your confused dissembling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, it rather does indicate that. Unless light striking the retina causes the image, there is no reason to believe that the way light strikes the retina influences how we see the object we are looking at. If there is some direct relationship between the eye and what we see, then the mere area that light relfecting off an object covers on the retina should be neither here nor there.

There is nothing mysterious about efferent vision. Every single photon that is reflected off of an object is picked up by the cones and rods which allow us to see said object. The idea that the area the light reflecting off an object covers is neither here nor there is therefore inaccurate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Microscopy is another technology which relies on the understanding that an image is formed by light striking the retina. There are observable phenomenon which don't make sense with your understanding of efferent vision. I hesitate to point them out because I really don't want to read your confused dissembling.

Microscopy is not a technology that negates efferent vision. Light striking the retina does not prove how the brain functions in regard to sight.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing mysterious about efferent vision. Every single photon that is reflected off of an object is picked up by the cones and rods which allow us to see said object. The idea that the area the light reflecting off an object covers is neither here nor there is therefore inaccurate.

Oh, REALLY, now?

I think she still has me on Ignore ( ) so perhaps someone can point out to Her Royal Highness that she is now blatantly contradicting Lessans.

And of course, I pointed this out to her hundreds of pages ago. So peacegirl now says that the light must be picked up by the cones and rods to allow us to see an object. But, the speed of light is finite. This means that if God turns on the sun at noon, it will take the photons some eight and a half minutes to arrive on the earth. But Lessans says that the sun would be seen immediately.

But that's impossible, according to what peacegirl just stated. She now says the light has to arrive at the eye, for us to see an object. So according to Lessans, when the sun is turned on at noon we see it immediately, but according to peacegirl, we have to wait eight and a half minutes.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Microscopy is not a technology that negates efferent vision. Light striking the retina does not prove how the brain functions in regard to sight.

It does not negate efferent vision as much as it relies on our current scientific understanding of vision to work properly. The burden of proof for efferent vision is so very much higher because microscopes work so very well based on our current understanding.

It's the reason why people keep on throwing cameras in your face. Nearly everything we understand about cameras converges so well with current scientific understanding that "efferent vision" by comparison is confused and insane.

Oh, and in case you missed it:

Originally Posted by davidm

And of course, I pointed this out to her hundreds of pages ago. So peacegirl now says that the light must be picked up by the cones and rods to allow us to see an object. But, the speed of light is finite. This means that if God turns on the sun at noon, it will take the photons some eight and a half minutes to arrive on the earth. But Lessans says that the sun would be seen immediately.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans made a claim regarding the eyes. As a result, he came to certain conclusions regarding our relation to the external world. I don't see where efferent vision would negate any proven technology. The development of atomic bombs and atomic energy, cell phones and computers (as well as to many of the technologies we rely on today), are not dependent on afferent vision for these technologies to work. If they were, then that would be conclusive proof of afferent vision. But they are not.

If efferent vision is true, as Lessans described, instantaneous transfer of information is possible via vision
The Theory of Relativity states instantaneous information transfer is not possible by any means
Several technologies only work if the Theory of Relativity is accurate
These technologies do in fact work

Therefore efferent vision contradicts the Theory of Relativity and would "negate proven technology" if it were true

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Quite the contrary, a world in which instantaneous seeing were possible would be so radically different from our own that it's doubtful it could have sentient observers at all.

What in the world does this have to do with efferent vision?

sen·tient [ sénshənt ]
conscious: capable of feeling and perception
responding with feeling: capable of responding emotionally rather than intellectually

Originally Posted by davidm

In such a world, the theory of relativity would be false, E=MC2 would be a false equation and there would be no atomic energy.

And how would seeing in real time cause E=MC2 to be a false equation?

Originally Posted by davidm

Moreover, in such a world, there would be no night sky! It would be completely white (see Obler's Paradox). Many other consequences can be deduced as well. Life as we know it could not exist.

And why would the sky be completely white if we saw the world as it is instead of the past?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If efferent vision is true, as Lessans described, instantaneous transfer of information is possible via vision
The Theory of Relativity states instantaneous information transfer is not possible by any means
Several technologies only work if the Theory of Relativity is accurate
These technologies do in fact work

Therefore efferent vision contradicts the Theory of Relativity and would "negate proven technology" if it were true

Keep in mind that peacegirl has now evidently retracted this position, putting her fundamentally at odds with Lessans.

She now says that the photons must arrive at the eye, for seeing to take place. This is consistent with the unexplained claim that, while light is not a cause of seeing, it is a condition of seeing. The actual cause of seeing was never explained by Lessans and has not been explained by peacegirl, but put that aside.

As I told her hundreds of pages ago, if it is the case that light must be present as a condition of seeing, even if it is not the actual cause of seeing, then this state of affairs still rules out Lessans’ claim that someone on earth would see the sun instantaneously if it were just turned on by God, or the claim that someone on Rigel would see Columbus landing in real time on earth.

Once one admits that the light must arrive at the eye as either a condition or a cause of seeing, then one must necessarily abandon the notion of real-time seeing that Lessans espoused, because the speed of light is finite.

On the other hand, if she now wishes to deny the proven fact that light speed is finite, and if she wishes to argue that it arrives at the eye instantaneously, then of course she is back to denying the theory of relativity. So she either disagrees with Lessans, or she disagrees with Einstein! What a muddle she is in!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, REALLY, now?

I think she still has me on Ignore ( ) so perhaps someone can point out to Her Royal Highness that she is now blatantly contradicting Lessans.

And of course, I pointed this out to her hundreds of pages ago. So peacegirl now says that the light must be picked up by the cones and rods to allow us to see an object. But, the speed of light is finite. This means that if God turns on the sun at noon, it will take the photons some eight and a half minutes to arrive on the earth. But Lessans says that the sun would be seen immediately.

Originally Posted by davidm

But that's impossible, according to what peacegirl just stated. She now says the light has to arrive at the eye, for us to see an object. So according to Lessans, when the sun is turned on at noon we see it immediately, but according to peacegirl, we have to wait eight and a half minutes.

That's exactly why Lessans gave that example. He wanted to make clear that if (this was a hypothetical example) the sun was turned on, we would be able to see it before the light reached Earth because there's no image from the light that is being decoded. The reason this is hypothetical is because there is no star that can just be turned on. By virtue of the fact that we can see a star with a telescope indicates that the light is already striking the lens which allows the image to be magnified. This is how it was described on howstuffworks.com.

When you combine the objective lens or primary mirror with the eyepiece, you have a telescope. Again, the basic idea is to collect lots of light to form a bright image inside th*e telescope, and then use something like a magnifying glass to magnify (enlarge) that bright image so that it takes up a lot of space on your retina.

This is important because this does not contradict efferent vision. We see stars because they are close enough, bright enough, or large enough to be seen and a telescope allows us to see those images at a greater distance because of their ability to collect light and magnify it. But the telescope does nothing other than allow us to see the image in real time. We are not seeing a star from the past because the light that the star is emitting is not being decoded in the brain. That is also why a camera takes the same photograph as we see with our naked eye.

Please don't have a complete fit because you disagree.

[LadyShea]

So you dispute the Theory of Relativity.

Good luck getting any scientist on board with that.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's exactly why Lessans gave that example. He wanted to make clear that if (this was a hypothetical example) the sun was turned on, we would be able to see it before the light reached Earth because there's no image from the light that is being decoded. The reason this is hypothetical is because there is no star that can just be turned on. By virtue of the fact that we can see a star with a telescope indicates that the light is already striking the lens which allows the image to be magnified. This is how it was described on howstuffworks.com.

When you combine the objective lens or primary mirror with the eyepiece, you have a telescope. Again, the basic idea is to collect lots of light to form a bright image inside th*e telescope, and then use something like a magnifying glass to magnify (enlarge) that bright image so that it takes up a lot of space on your retina.

This is important because this does not contradict efferent vision. We see stars because they are close enough, bright enough, or large enough to be seen and a telescope allows us to see those images at a greater distance because of their ability to collect light and magnify it. But the telescope does nothing other than allow us to see the image in real time. We are not seeing a star from the past because the light that the star is emitting is not being decoded in the brain. That is also why a camera takes the same photograph as we see with our naked eye.

Please don't have a complete fit because you disagree.

You just got through saying THIS:

Every single photon that is reflected off of an object is picked up by the cones and rods which allow us to see said object.

So the light has to reach the cones and rods in order for us to see said object! Those are YOUR words! According to Lessans, if God turns on the sun at noon, people on earth see it IMMEDIATELY. This is in DIRECTION CONTRADICTION to what you yourself just said! You said that in order for someone to see, the light must reach the rods and cones! But if God turns on the sun at noon, the photons will not reach the rods and cones on earth until eight and a half minutes have passed! Thus, you admit Lessans is wrong.

And, as to the telescope, no matter how much you hem, haw, handwave and weasel, the photons that are present when the telescope focues on a star are photons that left the star in the past. If we look at Alpha Centauri, which is about 4 light years away, then the photons that are present on Earth NOW, left Alpha Centauri four years ago, obviously. That is what it means to say that Alpha Centauri is four light years away. Hence, necessarily, we are seeing Alpha Centauri as it looked four years ago.

So, now that you have admitted that Lessans is wrong, where do you intend to go with this?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What in the world does this have to do with efferent vision?

sen·tient [ sénshənt ]
conscious: capable of feeling and perception
responding with feeling: capable of responding emotionally rather than intellectually

God, you are so fucking stupid, it never ceases to amaze me.

A world in which SR did not hold would have a radically different physical character than the world in which we live, and hence would not support the existence of sentient creatures. Add "cosmological fine-tuning" to the very, very long list of all the things you are wholly ignorant of.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And why would the sky be completely white if we saw the world as it is instead of the past?

Because if we don't need the light to travel to our eyes/instruments to see stars, we would be seeing big, bright stars in every possible direction and location in our "field of view", making the night sky white.

The relativity of distance as it relates to time has no place in efferent vision, remember?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And how would seeing in real time cause E=MC2 to be a false equation?

Wow. Just, wow.

E=MC2 holds only if relativity theory is correct. Real-time seeing and relativity theory are wholly incompatible, as has been repeatedly demonstratred to you despite all your prevarications. Of course, since E=MC2 and relativity theory ARE correct (you do recall that we have atom bombs, right?) Lessans is wrong. Yet again, Q.E.D.

ETA: What you don't seem to realize is that scientific theories and empirical data across different disciplines are consilient. You think you can wave a magic wand and declare "real time seeing" to be true, and it doesn't make any difference to anything. It makes a HUGE difference. Practically everything we know in physics, cosmology, chemistry, and biology, just to name a few disciplines, would be WRONG, if Lessans were right. Of course, he isn't right.

[LadyShea]

All she is left with is reverting to "seeing does not transmit/transfer/gain/whatever synonym information", which since she can't define it otherwise, I dunno where that could go.

[thedoc]

FYI, on another thread we are 'Shooting the Sun' efferently.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the kind of ridiculous answer that will force me out of this thread.

Be still my beating heart.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you are to be trusted when you were the one who argued that we can't move in the direction of greater satisfaction just because we have two choices that we can't decide upon -- as if this was absolute proof that he was wrong?

Yeah, it pretty much does demonstrate that he was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you dispute the Theory of Relativity.

Good luck getting any scientist on board with that.

I don't dispute the Theory of Relativity. I dispute afferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wow. Just, wow.

E=MC2 holds only if relativity theory is correct. Real-time seeing and relativity theory are wholly incompatible, as has been repeatedly demonstratred to you despite all your prevarications. Of course, since E=MC2 and relativity theory ARE correct (you do recall that we have atom bombs, right?) Lessans is wrong. Yet again, Q.E.D.

ETA: What you don't seem to realize is that scientific theories and empirical data across different disciplines are consilient. You think you can wave a magic wand and declare "real time seeing" to be true, and it doesn't make any difference to anything. It makes a HUGE difference. Practically everything we know in physics, cosmology, chemistry, and biology, just to name a few disciplines, would be WRONG, if Lessans were right. Of course, he isn't right.

You just hand waved my three questions away. You gave no explanation as to how seeing in real time has any influence on bomb making (you just said it would); you gave no explanation as to how efferent vision would turn people into non-sentient beings; and you gave no explanation as to how efferent vision would cause the sky to be completely white. Very convenient.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All she is left with is reverting to "seeing does not transmit/transfer/gain/whatever synonym information", which since she can't define it otherwise, I dunno where that could go.

But that's true. I've said this before. The act of "seeing" is not gaining information until it is interpreted by the brain. There is no transfer (as in traveling through space or time) that would put it in the same category as "traveling faster than the speed of light." It's like comparing apples to oranges just so your definition (which is the problem here) satisfies your need to prove Lessans wrong. Remember: Definitions mean squat as far as reality is concerned unless they reflect what is going on in reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It does not negate efferent vision as much as it relies on our current scientific understanding of vision to work properly. The burden of proof for efferent vision is so very much higher because microscopes work so very well based on our current understanding.

It's the reason why people keep on throwing cameras in your face. Nearly everything we understand about cameras converges so well with current scientific understanding that "efferent vision" by comparison is confused and insane.

I am not disputing cameras. Although cameras are detectors of light, the lens has to focus on the object or light source in order for the reflected or emitted light to be used to take a photograph.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Be still my beating heart.

Yeah, it pretty much does demonstrate that he was wrong.

No Angakuk, it does not. I don't know why you aren't paying attention. Liking two things exactly the same does not negate "greater satisfaction." Any movement that is made is an effort to break the tie becomes your new set of options, whether it is to decide to not pick either choice and move on to something else (which is a choice in itself [in the direction of greater satisfaction]; to pick a choice by a throw of dice or some other means [because you have no particular preference]; or to not move off the spot you are on and eventually die, like the hypothetical example of the donkey. BTW, that is also a choice in the direction of greater satisfaction, but most people would not be paralyzed to make a choice just because they can't choose between eating or drinking.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The act of "seeing" is not gaining information

Yes it is exactly that. Seeing is gathering/detecting information, or data if you prefer that term. There is no other possible definition.

until it is interpreted by the brain.

What does that mean in efferent vision? I thought you said the brain sees through the eyes? If so, the brain is gathering the information/data as the first step, then it analyzes and interprets that data as a second step.

There is no transfer

Yes, there is. Reality is that seeing is gaining information about what is being seen, it's color, location, distance, movement, size, shape etc.

Are you denying that these properties are information? Are you denying that you detect these properties when you see something?

If so, then you have no working definition of "seeing/sight" at all. If not, then what is happening?

There is no other possible explanation or definition of seeing, peacegirl. If there is, you need to offer it.

Definitions mean squat as far as reality is concerned unless they reflect what is going on in reality.

Reality is that seeing is gaining information about what is being seen, it's color, location, distance, movement, size, shape etc. etc. etc.

You've offered no alternative definition or description because there is none.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You just got through saying THIS:

So the light has to reach the cones and rods in order for us to see said object! Those are YOUR words! According to Lessans, if God turns on the sun at noon, people on earth see it IMMEDIATELY. This is in DIRECTION CONTRADICTION to what you yourself just said! You said that in order for someone to see, the light must reach the rods and cones! But if God turns on the sun at noon, the photons will not reach the rods and cones on earth until eight and a half minutes have passed! Thus, you admit Lessans is wrong.

You're right that there seems to be a contradiction, but as I stated, this was hypothetical to show that there is nothing in the light that is being interpreted in the brain. He was using this as a hypothetical example because there can be no situation where an object can be seen without light having traversed a finite distance. I know this disrupts the whole idea of stars being so many lightyears away that it would be impossible for a camera to take a picture of anything but the light that is being emitted. If Lessans is right you have to have an object or image large enough or bright enough for a photograph to be taken, which only indicates that a camera's lens cannot just pick up light without the presence of the light source.

Originally Posted by davidm

And, as to the telescope, no matter how much you hem, haw, handwave and weasel, the photons that are present when the telescope focues on a star are photons that left the star in the past. If we look at Alpha Centauri, which is about 4 light years away, then the photons that are present on Earth NOW, left Alpha Centauri four years ago, obviously. That is what it means to say that Alpha Centauri is four light years away. Hence, necessarily, we are seeing Alpha Centauri as it looked four years ago.

The lightsource being four light years away is in question. If Lessans is right, then the lightsoruce (Alpha Centauri) is large enough to be seen, which is why there is reflected light being picked up by the telescope.

Originally Posted by davidm

So, now that you have admitted that Lessans is wrong, where do you intend to go with this?

I intend to stay right where I am with my position because I believe you are giving Lessans a raw deal by not exploring his observations with the precision that is necessary.