A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are basing your entire argument on afferent vision, not the finite speed of light. But obviously, you don't care to see the difference.

It has nothing to do with afferent or efferent vision. It does not even have to do with the speed of light. What we are dealing with now is simple logic.

Lessans said:

1. The speed of light is finite.

2. The light must be "present" at the eye, as a "condition" for seeing.

3. If God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately.

Point 3, contradicts Points 1 and 2. Given his concession that the speed of light is finite, and given that light must be present to be seen, it follows that under premises one and two, his own premises, we would have to see the sun eight and a half minutes after it was turned on, not immediately.

Hence, he contradicted himself. Q.E.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is also the anti-eternalism thing. Time cannot be determined by frame of reference, because then reincarnation is not proven either, as it depends on an absolute NOW to exist that is completely separate from THEN.

For this book to be correct, both special and general relativity need to be wrong. Only a leap of faith can allow you to believe in both it and a working GPS system.

This book has nothing to do with reincarnation. And it also does not interfere with proven technologies such as GPS systems, nuclear weapons, fiber optics, etc. I don't know how many times I will have to repeat this until it finally sinks in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I should have pointed out that this NOW also needs to be universal - it needs to be NOW everywhere at the same time.

I have never talked to anyone who is not living in the present. Their time clock might be different but they are in the here and now. If you can show me someone that is not living in the here and now, then I will absolutely surrender carrying a white flag of defeat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not if you named yourself co-author and explained your reasoning for writing a new chapter

Because that would be a lie. I am not a co-author, and I never would taint his writing by adding or subtracting what he has painstakingly worked on for 30 years.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And it also does not interfere with proven technologies such as GPS systems, nuclear weapons, fiber optics, etc. I don't know how many times I will have to repeat this until it finally sinks in.

Repeating it isn't explaining it. Asserting it in the first place isn't explaining it.

Do you understand the objection? Do you understand why we keep saying instantaneous sight, aka real time seeing, is incompatible with Relativity and Causality?

If you do, address the objection clearly.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never talked to anyone who is not living in the present. Their time clock might be different but they are in the here and now. If you can show me someone that is not living in the here and now, then I will absolutely surrender carrying a white flag of defeat.

Living in another time is not part of the objection. You are offering to concede to a strawman.

Try again.

*Also, as soon as the words are out of your mouth or fingers, they are now a few seconds in the past.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;983836]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not if you named yourself co-author and explained your reasoning for writing a new chapter

Because that would be a lie. I am not a co-author, and I never would taint his writing by adding or subtracting what he has painstakingly worked on for 30 years.

If you wrote a new chapter it wouldn't be a lie. You would, in fact, be a co-author. This is done frequently when updating older works of non-fiction. As you said, it's not a religious work, right? It's not the words of an infallible deity, right?

I have a book about raising children that used Dr. Spock's original writings, then the co-author expanded, explained, and even offered corrections based on new information from developmental science.

You already admitted to adding a bunch of "examples" some of which you plagiarized.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because your concept of the development and even the definition of conscience is not the same as mine. Because you have oversimplified conscience into a single monolithic thing when it is not (hint: it is an interplay of cognition and emotion at minimum). Because you believe that all humans have exactly the same objectively measurable conscience, when it is actually defined and based on subjective values. Because you believe evolutionary processes gives a shit about rationalization and justification.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not oversimplified conscience. It works in a very specific way with a very specific function.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then explain how it works in detail. What all processes are involved?

I explained how it functions. I don't have to get into neuroscience to explain what it does. You are constantly confronting Lessans. He could be explaining very accurately the process of eating, and you would still be sticking out your tongue, saying "That's not proof. You have to show exactly how the food gets processed in the digestive system, and you aren't a gastroenterologist. I get exhausted by your never ending attempts to discredit this man, yet you don't even know what his discovery is. I have heard your answer, and it's incorrect.

Yes, evolutionary processes gives a shit about conscience, or else we wouldn't have one. If we didn't, we would do whatever we want whenever we want and not care about anyone else.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said it doesn't give a shit about justification or rationalization. I didn't say conscience didn't have a purpose.

But if evolution doesn't give a shit about justification or rationalization, then it doesn't give a shit about conscience, because they work hand in hand. And since conscience has a purpose that evolution gives a shit about, then it also gives a shit about justification and rationalization. Geezeeeeee!

As far as evolution is concerned, conscience is a protection for ourselves so that we don't do things that we would feel remorseful for later on. This is a form of SELF-PRESERVATION.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yay, we agree, although I think you have fallen a bit short...it's about self preservation within the framework of reciprocal altruism

I really don't care how you word it. It seems like your wording is the only way you can understand my wording. If that's the case, so be it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, there are those who seem to have no conscience, which is why it's difficult to imagine how conscience will be able to control man's behavior in a no free will environment.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Conscience can be impaired to varying degrees due to injury, disease as well as congenital factors. Man can't control everything.

Man can control nothing actually. We are subjected to our nature which allows us to find answers to our problems, but we have no actual control over our very human processes. Yes, we can be impaired in many ways, and if this would cause someone to desire killing someone, we would have to prevent this from happening, just as we do today. But the majority of people are not diseased or have injuries that would cause their conscience to be out of commission and therefore useless.

[LadyShea]

No, you didn't. You described the results, not the processes.

It's like if I asked you to explain how an internal combustion engine works and to describe the processes and you answered "You put gas in, start the car with the key, and it moves"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to get into neuroscience to explain what it does.

No, just like you don't have to get into the mechanics of internal combustion to explain that a car moves.

If, however, you are trying to claim that you have special insight into the workings of a car and that you have a method of improving how cars function, not knowing how the engine works makes that claim a rather arrogant and ignorant one that nobody will be inclined to listen to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are constantly confronting Lessans.

LOL, well I didn't seek Lessans out for a confrontation. You came here, said "Look at this" and I am giving my opinion on what you have presented. If you came to my door with a product to sell (say a vacuum) but you couldn't demonstrate how it works and just said "trust me, this is the best vacuum on the market, but I don't know why or how, nor can it be compared to other vacuums", I would be doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He could be explaining very accurately the process of eating, and you would still be sticking out your tongue, saying "That's not proof. You have to show exactly how the food gets processed in the digestive system, and you aren't a gastroenterologist.

If he made a claim that he could improve digestive functioning for all people, as he did with "raising the level of conscience", then yes, I would expect him to show exactly how digestion works.

The process of eating is not the process of digesting. One could very correctly demonstrate the process of eating using a fork, mouth, chewing and swallowing with a non-digestible substance. That would very accurately describe eating and need no further explanation.

The end result of conscience, the feeling that one has done "wrong" or "right", is not the processes that produce conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get exhausted by your never ending attempts to discredit this man, yet you don't even know what his discovery is. I have heard your answer, and it's incorrect.

I'm sorry if you feel it's incorrect. I feel I have a very good grasp of it as it has been presented.

If reasonably intelligent and well read people can't seem to grasp a concept, then it is reasonable to assume it is either not being communicated well enough, or that the idea itself has flaws. You and Lessans, on the other hand, unreasonably blame the reader/audience, as you have since page one of this thread and as Lessans proactively did throughout the book.

How do you think that will work out if the goal is for reasonably intelligent and well read people to read, understand, and then spread the good news?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if evolution doesn't give a shit about justification or rationalization, then it doesn't give a shit about conscience, because they work hand in hand. And since conscience has a purpose that evolution gives a shit about, then it also gives a shit about justification and rationalization. Geezeeeeee!

No they don't necessarily go hand in hand. Rationalization and justification are simply ways some individuals try to cope with the negative feelings that arise from their conscience, as is atonement, they are not a function of conscience itself anymore than aspirin goes hand in hand with, and is therefore a function of pain.

The level of conscience is certainly no more predictable in any individual than is their level of pain tolerance. It varies greatly and can only be "measured" in comparison to others, and even that offers qualitative as well as quantitative differences. Neither is something objective.

Anyway, how can a human trait have a purpose, either through design or evolution, but not be "heritable" as you said conscience is not heritable?

The wording isn't the problem, it's the framework that conscience works within, and the processes that produce it, that we disagree about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the majority of people are not diseased or have injuries that would cause their conscience to be out of commission and therefore useless.

I didn't say anything about conscience being useless. I was saying neither you nor Lessans can rationally claim to know how conscience works, or the "level" of conscience, in all people.

[ceptimus]

BBC News - Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

BBC News - Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

No, ceptimus, scientists never, ever go against the established dogma! And who cares about their recorded and repeated data?

Of course this is an exciting bit of news and it needs to be discussed over in the Sciences forum. Shall I start the thread or do you want to?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It has nothing to do with afferent or efferent vision. It does not even have to do with the speed of light. What we are dealing with now is simple logic.

Lessans said:

1. The speed of light is finite.

2. The light must be "present" at the eye, as a "condition" for seeing.

3. If God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately.

Point 3, contradicts Points 1 and 2. Given his concession that the speed of light is finite, and given that light must be present to be seen, it follows that under premises one and two, his own premises, we would have to see the sun eight and a half minutes after it was turned on, not immediately.

Hence, he contradicted himself. Q.E.D.

That is why he gave the example of God turning on the sun. He wanted to emphasize that we would see the sun instantly because it would meet the conditions of efferent sight; that the sun would be large enough and bright enough to be seen in real time. I don't think he meant that light does not have to be present at the eye as a condition of seeing. It was a hypothetical example, therefore anytime we see an object or image, that would mean that the light is already present at the eye because it has already traversed the distance.

I understand the confusion. If galaxies are that far away and their light hasn't reached us yet, how can we see them? I guess it boils down to how far away these galaxies actually are. Right now we estimate how far they are based on the "images" of the past we believe we are seeing. If the images are the real thing, then the light didn't have to travel as far as we thought. I know TLR will say it's impossible because the Earth would burn up. So the debate continues on...

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, ceptimus, scientists never, ever go against the established dogma! And who cares about their recorded and repeated data?

Of course this is an exciting bit of news and it needs to be discussed over in the Sciences forum. Shall I start the thread or do you want to?

Please go ahead.

* ceptimus tries to avoid starting threads, usually.

[LadyShea]

It was a hypothetical example, therefore anytime we see an object or image, that would mean that the light is already present at the eye because it has already traversed the distance.

But in his example he specifically stated that the light had not yet traversed the distance and was not already present, yet we could see the sun immediately, but would have to wait for the light to traverse the distance to see our neighbor. So, is light being present at the eye a condition of seeing or isn't it?

Lessans was very, very specific in his hypothetical, and it does seem to offer a contradiction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, you didn't. You described the results, not the processes.

He explained under what conditions conscience controls behavior and under what conditions it doesn't. He did not have to be a neuroscientist to give an accurate description.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's like if I asked you to explain how an internal combustion engine works and to describe the processes and you answered "You put gas in, start the car with the key, and it moves"

It's more like Jane Goodall explaining how monkeys relate to one another in a social setting (which she's been studying for years), and you telling her that she has not proved that all monkeys of the same species act that way because it's only one demographic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to get into neuroscience to explain what it does.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, just like you don't have to get into the mechanics of internal combustion to explain that a car moves.

Jane Goodall did not have to dissect monkey's brains to learn about their behavior and make certain generalizations.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If, however, you are trying to claim that you have special insight into the workings of a car and that you have a method of improving how cars function, not knowing how the engine works makes that claim a rather arrogant and ignorant one that nobody will be inclined to listen to.

In that case I would need to know the workings of the inside of a car. But Jane Goodall, from her careful observations, is helping to save the chimps and other endangered species.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are constantly confronting Lessans.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, well I didn't seek Lessans out for a confrontation. You came here, said "Look at this" and I am giving my opinion on what you have presented. If you came to my door with a product to sell (say a vacuum) but you couldn't demonstrate how it works and just said "trust me, this is the best vacuum on the market, but I don't know why or how, nor can it be compared to other vacuums", I would be doing the same thing.

He is not saying "trust me". He is showing how conscience functions, and this knowledge, along with the knowledge that man's will is not free, leads to his discovery which is truly remarkable because it changes the landscape of our world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He could be explaining very accurately the process of eating, and you would still be sticking out your tongue, saying "That's not proof. You have to show exactly how the food gets processed in the digestive system, and you aren't a gastroenterologist.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If he made a claim that he could improve digestive functioning for all people, as he did with "raising the level of conscience", then yes, I would expect him to show exactly how digestion works.

The process of eating is not the process of digesting. One could very correctly demonstrate the process of eating using a fork, mouth, chewing and swallowing with a non-digestible substance. That would very accurately describe eating and need no further explanation.

Well that's what he was doing. He was describing how conscience works and under what conditions, which does not require processes. Scientists can't locate conscience in the brain, but I know we have one.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The end result of conscience, the feeling that one has done "wrong" or "right", is not the processes that produce conscience.

Conscience only bothers us when we know we are about to do or say something wrong. It doesn't enter into our minds when we do something right.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get exhausted by your never ending attempts to discredit this man, yet you don't even know what his discovery is. I have heard your answer, and it's incorrect.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'm sorry if you feel it's incorrect. I feel I have a very good grasp of it as it has been presented.

Then explain it LadyShea. You seem to know everything. If your aim is to put this thread out of its misery, you're doing a helluva good job.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If reasonably intelligent and well read people can't seem to grasp a concept, then it is reasonable to assume it is either not being communicated well enough, or that the idea itself has flaws. You and Lessans, on the other hand, unreasonably blame the reader/audience, as you have since page one of this thread and as Lessans proactively did throughout the book.

I'm not blaming anyone, but there must come a time that we either continue past page 53, or we don't. Saying "prove it" with a confrontational tone, is not going to get us anywhere. There is a lot of wisdom behind these premises, but if you can't get past your doubt because he didn't "prove" them to your satisfaction, then all the conversation in the world is going to get nowhere.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you think that will work out if the goal is for reasonably intelligent and well read people to read, understand, and then spread the good news?

Like I said, I'm not blaming anyone but the truth is I don't think it's all me that has the problem. I might need to go to people who have a little more faith (I know faith is a dirty word to you) in what he is saying by giving him a chance. You aren't. You're stuck and you won't budge.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if evolution doesn't give a shit about justification or rationalization, then it doesn't give a shit about conscience, because they work hand in hand. And since conscience has a purpose that evolution gives a shit about, then it also gives a shit about justification and rationalization. Geezeeeeee!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No they don't necessarily go hand in hand. Rationalization and justification are simply ways some individuals try to cope with the negative feelings that arise from their conscience, as is atonement, they are not a function of conscience itself anymore than aspirin goes hand in hand with, and is therefore a function of pain.

They are definitely a function of conscience to the extent that someone does something that he knows is wrong and now must find a way to justify his actions. I said this before; we don't always see a connection between a vicious act and a justification for it. But there is one, and if you trace back into someone's life far enough you'll find it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The level of conscience is certainly no more predictable in any individual than is their level of pain tolerance. It varies greatly and can only be "measured" in comparison to others, and even that offers qualitative as well as quantitative differences. Neither is something objective.

The level of conscience is not predictable in a free will environment. People can use all kinds of justifications and rationalizations to do what they want, even if it involves hurting others. Pain tolerance is very individual and it's difficult to know each person's pain threshold, so this is a poor analogy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, how can a human trait have a purpose, either through design or evolution, but not be "heritable" as you said conscience is not heritable?

Conscience is a universal trait. If you are born with a brain, you have a conscience, although it is the environment that determines how strong that conscience will become.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as evolution is concerned, conscience is a protection for ourselves so that we don't do things that we would feel remorseful for later on. This is a form of SELF-PRESERVATION.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yay, we agree, although I think you have fallen a bit short...it's about self preservation within the framework of reciprocal altruism

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't care how you word it. It seems like your wording is the only way you can understand my wording. If that's the case, so be it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The wording isn't the problem, it's the framework that conscience works within, and the processes that produce it, that we disagree about.

You haven't offered me any processes; and regardless of whether we understand the process (which is not yet known), it does not interfere with how it functions, just as the process of efferent sight (which is not yet known) does not interfere with how our eyes function.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the majority of people are not diseased or have injuries that would cause their conscience to be out of commission and therefore useless.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say anything about conscience being useless. I was saying neither you nor Lessans can rationally claim to know how conscience works, or the "level" of conscience, in all people.

Yes he can. If we could hurt people regardless of the environmental conditions, then conscience would not work the way he claims. But it does work, which is why someone could never desire to hurt another under the conditions he describes, whereas that same person could easily hurt another in a world of blame and punishment.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why he gave the example of God turning on the sun.

Ja?

He wanted to emphasize that we would see the sun instantly because it would meet the conditions of efferent sight; that the sun would be large enough and bright enough to be seen in real time.

He said that the light from the sun would take 8.5 minutes to reach the earth, which is correct; and he claimed that light had to be present as a condition of seeing. Hence, it is not possible, under his own scenario, to see the sun instantaneously, when God turns it on, because the light will not be present for 8.5 minutes, and so Dumbo contradicted himself. Q.E.D.

I don't think he meant that light does not have to be present at the eye as a condition of seeing.

Er, right. He said light has to be present at the eye, as a condition of seeing. He probably noticed this one day during a blackout at the pool hall, and discovered he couldn't line up his shots.

By the way, what do you think, and what did Lessans think, "bright enough to be seen," means? What is brightness? Do tell!

It was a hypothetical example, therefore anytime we see an object or image, that would mean that the light is already present at the eye because it has already traversed the distance.

Except that the light from the sun, when God turns it on, is not already present at the eye; it takes 8.5 minutes to get to the eye from the sun, when the sun is turned on. That is what he himself said. Thus, it is logically impossible to see the sun instantaneously, when God turns it on, if it takes the light from the sun 8.5 minutes to reach the eye after God turns it on. Hence, he contradicted himself.

I understand the confusion.

Isn't that precious? She "understands the confusion."

If galaxies are that far away and their light hasn't reached us yet, how can we see them? I guess it boils down to how far away these galaxies actually are.

Oh, they are really, really, really far away. But even if they were hanging around in the orbit of Jupiter, which they can't possibly be because in that case they would burn us up, we would still be seeing them as they were in the past. So the actual distances are irrelevant.

So the debate continues on...

Only in your minuscule mind.

[LadyShea]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep dodging the question. He described his observations, but that is not a rational basis on which to make predictions that apply to all people in the whole world.

I would absolutely tell Jane Goodall that she hasn't proven all "monkeys'[sic] act, or can be predicted to act, in any certain way.

Also, other scientists have criticized Jane Goodall's methodology, including accusing her of anthropomorphism.

Lastly I don't think Jane Goodall herself has ever claimed that her observations apply to all "monkeys'[sic] or can be used to make predictions for all future individuals of the same species. Jane Goodall understands various forces can and will act against a population and that we cannot make predictions regarding behavior without knowing all factors.

So you admit he extrapolated, or more specifically generalized?

Jane Goodall has not been able to prevent chimps from acting like chimps. They still fight amongst themselves and even have tribal battles. Some think her methods even led to strife

the use of feeding stations to attract Gombe chimpanzees is, in particular, thought by some to have altered normal foraging and feeding patterns as well as social relationships; this argument is the focus of a book published by Margaret Power in 1991.[31] It has been suggested that higher levels of aggression and conflict with other chimpanzee groups in the area were consequences of the feeding, which could have created the "wars" between chimpanzee social groups described by Goodall, aspects of which she did not witness in the years before artificial feeding began at Gombe. Thus, some regard Goodall's observations as distortions of normal chimpanzee behavior.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Goodall#Criticism

ETA: LOL, just like your use of Mother Theresa as an example of goodness personified, you seem to think we all view Jane Goodall as some kind of flawless person. Do you think I don't point my skepticism at everyone? Do you think any of the people in this thread just follow some party line? There are no sacred cows here, peacegirl. Not even Einstein. Yours and Lessans "You are just parroting dogma" bullshit don't fly here.

[LadyShea]

Anyway, feel free to compare Lessans to Goodall when Goodall claims to have discovered an undeniable law of ape nature, that depends heavily on their neural functions, without ever having studied their neural functions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But in his example he specifically stated that the light had not yet traversed the distance and was not already present, yet we could see the sun immediately, but would have to wait for the light to traverse the distance to see our neighbor. So, is light being present at the eye a condition of seeing or isn't it?

Lessans was very, very specific in his hypothetical, and it does seem to offer a contradiction.

I know what he said, but I believe he stated this as a way to show that there is nothing in the light that is causing sight. I don't think he meant it literally. He also said:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 116

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is
defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual
receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five
senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.’ But this is
a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Ja?

He said that the light from the sun would take 8.5 minutes to reach the earth, which is correct; and he claimed that light had to be present as a condition of seeing. Hence, it is not possible, under his own scenario, to see the sun instantaneously, when God turns it on, because the light will not be present for 8.5 minutes, and so Dumbo contradicted himself. Q.E.D.

Er, right. He said light has to be present at the eye, as a condition of seeing. He probably noticed this one day during a blackout at the pool hall, and discovered he couldn't line up his shots.

By the way, what do you think, and what did Lessans think, "bright enough to be seen," means? What is brightness? Do tell!

Except that the light from the sun, when God turns it on, is not already present at the eye; it takes 8.5 minutes to get to the eye from the sun, when the sun is turned on. That is what he himself said. Thus, it is logically impossible to see the sun instantaneously, when God turns it on, if it takes the light from the sun 8.5 minutes to reach the eye after God turns it on. Hence, he contradicted himself.

Isn't that precious? She "understands the confusion."

Oh, they are really, really, really far away. But even if they were hanging around in the orbit of Jupiter, which they can't possibly be because in that case they would burn us up, we would still be seeing them as they were in the past. So the actual distances are irrelevant.

Only in your minuscule mind.

I knew I shouldn't have answered you.

[LadyShea]

specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.’ But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

And this statement makes no sense because light is the external stimuli that the eyes receive, and he even admits it, so why does he conclude that it is different than the other senses?

Why did he say "nothing from the external world, other than light" as if light is not a stimuli?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, feel free to compare Lessans to Goodall when Goodall claims to have discovered an undeniable law of ape nature, that depends heavily on their neural functions, without ever having studied their neural functions.

So now we are compairing Lessans to Goodall, I didn't know Goodall husteled pool, perhaps that is the cause of the 'monkey wars'.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I knew I shouldn't have answered you.

Can't explain the contradiction, so you avoid talking about it. Noted.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think he meant it literally.

You don't think? I thought you said you knew what Lessans wrote and were going to explain it to us. It seems you are less the authority than you have lead us to believe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But in his example he specifically stated that the light had not yet traversed the distance and was not already present, yet we could see the sun immediately, but would have to wait for the light to traverse the distance to see our neighbor. So, is light being present at the eye a condition of seeing or isn't it?

Lessans was very, very specific in his hypothetical, and it does seem to offer a contradiction.

I believe his purpose was to explain what he meant by efferent vision because, in a world that has accepted afferent vision as fact, it's difficult to wrap one's mind around the idea that the image is not being interpreted through signals coming from the light itself.