A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Eyes focus by changing the shape of the lens to adjust to different distances, as opposed to a fixed shape lens that has only a small range of optimal distance for focus, like newborns eyes

You didn't play outside with a magnifying glass did you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Thanks peacegirl.

I would normally choose to write the groups in alphabetical order, so I'd rearrange your father's second row like this (it's exactly the same groups as he had):

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ADG BKN CLO JEI MFH

This is the first solution I've found with those as the first two rows:

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ADG BKN CLO JEI MFH
AEK BDH CIM FJO GLN
AFN BIO CDJ EHL GKM
AHO BGJ CEN DLM FIK
AIL BEM CFG DKO HJN
AJM BFL CHK DIN EGO

Remember, if you compare this with your father's solution, the rows, and the groups within each row, may be in a different order.

However if your father's solution has any group of three letters that aren't in mine, then it's clearly a different solution.

It's interesting because in the A group the only difference was that he had AFO instead of AFN, and AHN instead of AHO, but it appears it doesn't make a difference. I'll go through it later just to see the different combinations that you came up with. I congratulate you on your success in figuring this puzzle out!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Eyes focus by changing the shape of the lens to adjust to different distances, as opposed to a fixed shape lens that has only a small range of optimal distance for focus, like newborns eyes

You didn't play outside with a magnifying glass did you?

But this has nothing to do with a newborn's eyes. We're talking about two different things. The lens can't focus in a newborn's eyes not because of the reasons you just mentioned. The lens can't focus because the brain isn't looking at that young age until there is enough stimuli to cause the brain to desire seeing what it is experiencing from the other senses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, there really is no chance of that. And my analogy is very valid, because Lessans observed something nobody else has ever observed, nor can observe now, even though they tried.

As has been said many times, efferent vision (the brain looking out through the eyes), was the leading theory for decades and all early experiments and exploration of vision were with it in mind. They discovered our vision works the way it does (light, transduction, visual cortex etc.), they didn't set up experiments with the conclusion already in mind.

I am not disputing at this point that there is a connection between light, transduction (which I disputed and I admit I may have been wrong; but that doesn't make Lessans wrong because that was not his disputation), and the visual cortex. I am disputing that what scientists think this afferent connection will lead to is normal sight.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course. Your eyes need to bend light rays so the image can be focused sharply on your retina. The better your retina records the image, the more likely that your brain will interpret the image, and the more likely you will see the image clearly.

OK, close enough.

Refracting is a big word that means bending light rays.

Thanks, that'll come in handy in my electrodynamics exam in two weeks.

If a person has vision trouble, it's often a refractive problem. Glasses or contact lenses work so well because they can correct refractive problems. In other words, they bend the light rays in a way that lets you see more clearly.

OK.

So if the refraction is corrected, the image that the brain sees will be clear. If it's not striking correctly, the brain will not see clear. It would work the same way in afferent vision as in efferent vision, because the exact point at which the light strikes the retina is still necessary in order to see a clear image,

Why do you think that is? Why does the light have to be focused on the retina? It's arriving there even if it's not focused, and if (your version of) efferent vision is correct, the brain should be able to look there because all the conditions are met.

but this has nothing to do with how a newborn begins to focus his eyes.

We'll see.

[peacegirl]

You have to go back to the drawing board in order to accuse him of a fallacy. When he used the word "sight", it was synonymous with focus. Until we can focus our eyes, there is no real sight. And as far as dogs being able to identify their owners from a picture, the tests that have been done are far from reliable (you may think they are, but I don't), therefore Lessans is still in the running.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, I just pointed the fallacies out in the post before this. It lies at the basis of his solution for evil, and it confuses that what does happen with that what has to happen.

He is not confusing anything. Under the new conditions conscience cannot allow someone to strike a first blow, or even risk taking a chance that would lead to a first blow, therefore what does happen which is the prevention of evil [or hurt] has to happen as a necessary outcome, or as that alternative that brings greater satisfaction. Remember, you can't choose an alternative that gives you less satisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available. It's impossible. If you don't get this, you will not understand why there is only one choice that is available, and that is not to hurt others under the changed conditions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And you keep misunderstanding. It is not that babies cannot focus - they can. They just cannot change the focus yet. Also, newborns blink if something approaches their eyes very quickly, long before they have learned to change their focus.

Babies can probably see something which is why they blink, but to translate that to sight when they have not yet focused their eyes is stretching your definition of what sight is in order to make your argument fit. They cannot focus yet, that has already been established. Even TLR admits this although he believes the ciliary muscle has just not been fully developed. In either case, we can see that newborns are cross-eyed which mean their eyes are not focused. Ughhhh!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So Lessans observation that babies require stimulation other than sight to learn to "look out" at something through a process of conditioning was wrong. They see right from the get-go, with no conditioning involved. This is something to keep in mind when you think about the number of things he requires us to accept on his authority alone: we know for a fact that he got things wrong, because he never bothered to test his ideas and share both the test and the result.

You're entitled to think what you want, but the tests are far from conclusive so, I will repeat, Lessans has not been excluded.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this has nothing to do with a newborn's eyes. We're talking about two different things. The lens can't focus in a newborn's eyes not because of the reasons you just mentioned. The lens can't focus because the brain isn't looking at that young age until there is enough stimuli to cause the brain to desire seeing what it is experiencing from the other senses.

The lens can't change focus because the tiny muscles that are used to change the lens' shape aren't well developed at birth. This is a known and observed process, peacegirl. It's also far simpler and more likely to be the case than some mess about desire and other senses.

Occam's razor is quite a useful tool.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The lens can't change focus because the tiny muscles that are used to change the lens' shape aren't well developed at birth. This is a known and observed process, peacegirl. It's also far simpler and more likely to be the case than some mess about desire and other senses.

Occam's razor is quite a useful tool.

You can't use Occam's razor in your defense since there is no mess about desire and other senses, as you claim. It's as simple as what you claim regarding tiny muscles that aren't well developed at birth.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not disputing at this point that there is a connection between light, transduction (which I disputed and I admit I may have been wrong; but that doesn't make Lessans wrong because that was not his disputation), and the visual cortex. I am disputing that what scientists think this afferent connection will lead to is normal sight.

What on Earth do you mean you no longer dispute these things?

So you agree that light enters the eye, and through transduction the impulses are sent to the visual cortex? From the eyes to the brain is an afferent connection, because that is what afferent means...TO the brain.

So what are you still disputing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

OK, close enough.

Thanks, that'll come in handy in my electrodynamics exam in two weeks.

OK.

Why do you think that is? Why does the light have to be focused on the retina? It's arriving there even if it's not focused, and if (your version of) efferent vision is correct, the brain should be able to look there because all the conditions are met.

We'll see.

No, all conditions are not met if the brain is seeing through the eyes a blurred image. It takes light to be refracted onto the retina at that exact point where the lens can work correctly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What on Earth do you mean you no longer dispute these things?

So you agree that light enters the eye, and through transduction the impulses are sent to the visual cortex? From the eyes to the brain is an afferent connection, because that is what afferent means...TO the brain.

So what are you still disputing?

I realize that the process of transduction does not mean that we are seeing the real world due to signals that are being relayed to the brain. I understand that the connection from the optic nerve to the brain is an afferent connection, but I don't agree that this is the end of story. It is a great leap to conclude that from these impulses the brain is interpreting the signals and seeing the real world in delayed time. That is what we're trying to figure out but if I can't even discuss the possible error in the conclusions drawn without being attacked, Lessans has no chance in hell.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't use Occam's razor in your defense since there is no mess about desire and other senses, as you claim. It's as simple as what you claim regarding tiny muscles that aren't well developed at birth.

No, it's not nearly as simple. Many muscles are not well developed at birth because they were not used in utero, hence newborn humans can't hold up their head. In healthy full term babies their heart muscle is well developed at birth and their diaphragm works well so they can breathe and cry.

There is no need to practice focusing on different distances in the womb, so those muscles aren't very strong until they get used.

You may not be able to pick up a 70lb box today, but if you developed those muscles by lifting increasingly heavy things daily, you would get to that point. People with broken bones and casts find that their muscles become weakened due to lack of use and have to redevelop those muscles, correct?

This is the most common sense, observable, and relatable thing in the world- human muscles don't work well without having been developed and maintained. You are only disputing it from a faith standpoint.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, there really is no chance of that. And my analogy is very valid, because Lessans observed something nobody else has ever observed, nor can observe now, even though they tried.

As has been said many times, efferent vision (the brain looking out through the eyes), was the leading theory for decades and all early experiments and exploration of vision were with it in mind. They discovered our vision works the way it does (light, transduction, visual cortex etc.), they didn't set up experiments with the conclusion already in mind.

Let me add that you are speaking in generalizations again. You keep saying "they" did this and "they" did that. Where is your proof LadyShea? Isn't that what you are constantly asking me for? The proof that you have offered thus far is unreliable. Now you are claiming that "they" (whoever "they" are) proved that the eyes are not efferent. Where are these major studies? All you have given me is inconclusive, unreliable tests that mean zilch as far as proving Lessans wrong.

[Vivisectus]

He is not confusing anything. Under the new conditions conscience cannot allow someone to strike a first blow, or even risk taking a chance that would lead to a first blow, therefore what does happen which is the prevention of evil [or hurt] has to happen as a necessary outcome, or as that alternative that brings greater satisfaction. Remember, you can't choose an alternative that gives you less satisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available. It's impossible. If you don't get this, you will not understand why there is only one choice that is available, and that is not to hurt others under the changed conditions

.

But that is exactly the part that has not been proven, because what he uses to prove it is fallacious. He defines "That which leads to the greatest satisfaction" as "That which people end up choosing", and so he equates that what DOES happen with that what HAS to happen. However, we have no reason to believe that that which did happen happened because it HAD to happen.

As we have not shown that this is so, we have not proven that a person is compelled to choose that which leads to the greatest satisfaction. We have merely created some confusing and misleading definitions.

Babies can probably see something which is why they blink, but to translate that to sight when they have not yet focused their eyes is stretching your definition of what sight is in order to make your argument fit. They cannot focus yet, that has already been established. Even TLR admits this although he believes the ciliary muscle has just not been fully developed. In either case, we can see that newborns are cross-eyed which mean their eyes are not focused. Ughhhh!

No, you are moving the goalposts again. Babies can see, right from the get-go. They may not be able to change their focus, but they certainly do see, and do not require any kind of conditioning or stimulation of the other senses for this at all. Therefor his observation, which quite clearly states that this is not so, was wrong.

You're entitled to think what you want, but the tests are far from conclusive so, I will repeat, Lessans has not been excluded.

It is pretty conclusive to anyone who does not automatically assume Lessans to be infallible. The newborn reflex is well documented. It is triggered by sight - the babies cant hear or smell or feel the object coming close to their eyes. They see it, simple as that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a great leap to conclude that from these impulses the brain is interpreting the signals and seeing the real world in delayed time.

It's not a great leap, it's not even a little hop. We understand the process so well and so thoroughly we have even recreated it in a limited way...in cameras and other imaging technology.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is what we're trying to figure out but if I can't even discuss the possible error in the conclusions drawn without being attacked, Lessans has no chance in hell.

Why can't you discuss possible errors in Lessans conclusions without freaking out?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

"Molecules of light". QED.

I will also predict that Janis will eventually leave here only to repeat this entire charade all over again on some other forum, only to once again be baffled by all the empirical evidence against Lessan's unsupported claims as if she'd never been shown all this before, along with everybody's inexplicable and unreasonable hostility towards both his work and her own peculiar methods of presentation, defence, avoidance, and denial.

Hi Spacemonkey, welcome. You always seem to find me. I really do value your input as I remember you being very fair in how you framed your questions. I hope you stick around even if it's to try to prove Lessans wrong. If he isn't wrong, your refutation will help to highlight why he isn't. And if he is wrong, kudos to you for holding your ground.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why can't you discuss possible errors in Lessans conclusions without freaking out?

I'm not freaking out unless "freaking out" to you means giving in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

.

But that is exactly the part that has not been proven, because what he uses to prove it is fallacious. He defines "That which leads to the greatest satisfaction" as "That which people end up choosing", and so he equates that what DOES happen with that what HAS to happen. However, we have no reason to believe that that which did happen happened because it HAD to happen.

As we have not shown that this is so, we have not proven that a person is compelled to choose that which leads to the greatest satisfaction. We have merely created some confusing and misleading definitions.

I am not moving any goalposts because the premise has not changed. Therefore, to use this as a reason to negate the claim that newborns need stimulation of the other senses, doesn't follow.

You're entitled to think what you want, but the tests are far from conclusive so, I will repeat, Lessans has not been excluded.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is pretty conclusive to anyone who does not automatically assume Lessans to be infallible. The newborn reflex is well documented. It is triggered by sight - the babies cant hear or smell or feel the object coming close to their eyes. They see it, simple as that.

I never said Lessans was infallible, nor am I basing my understanding on devotion or allegiance to him. A reflex is not the same thing as sight LadyShea. Babies don't have to hear or smell or feel to reflexively respond due to a light shining in their eyes or something that causes an autonomic response. You are making a huge leap from this type of reaction to "they can see." They do not see images that we would call normal sight. It's as simple as that.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am learning quite a bit doing research for this thread.

Eh, you could do research on these subjects without interacting with a twit though...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me add that you are speaking in generalizations again. You keep saying "they" did this and "they" did that. Where is your proof LadyShea? Isn't that what you are constantly asking me for?

I have never asked for proof. Not even once. I don't use that word because I don't find it meaningful.

In science, knowledge is built on evidence and observation from multiple sources over time. The body of evidence is there, in mountains of literature. There is no single piece of "proof" I can link you to, and you have refused to research any of these issues for yourself. You are ignorant because you choose to be.

Now you are claiming that "they" (whoever "they" are) proved that the eyes are not efferent. Where are these major studies?

Start with The Lone Rangers essay. Read it fully, ask questions about specific processes and/or use the terms and processes he describes to search PubMed for abstracts, and find a University library that can get you whatever full articles you need. You will find that science and medicine both have been interested in vision for as long as humans have been trying to figure stuff out and there are mountains of things to go through. Anatomy, ophthalmology, neuroscience are all fields you will need to look in.

If you do the work, and are still not convinced, then fine. Many times people reach different conclusions after viewing the exact same results and evidence. Just saying "nuh uh" without looking at anything is the biggest cop out I have ever seen. How you can say you aren't just like a fundie is beyond me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you have given me is inconclusive, unreliable tests that mean zilch as far as proving Lessans wrong.

How would you know how to assess the reliability of a scientific experiment when the height of knowledge in your opinion is shit your dad said he observed?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

Eh, you could do research on these subjects without interacting with a twit though...

Please don't add your nonsense erimir (I had enough of your nonsense early on in this thread), or you'll be next on ignore.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by erimir

Eh, you could do research on these subjects without interacting with a twit though...

I wouldn't though. The thread is prompting the rabbit holing. I did the same thing back in the day arguing with apologists. I never would have been interested in researching evolution and Biblical history and stuff if I wasn't arguing with someone about it.

That's just me. Arguments with my husband or friends are the same way. Hell even a movie can spark it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have never asked for proof. Not even once. I don't use that word because I don't find it meaningful.

In science, knowledge is built on evidence and observation from multiple sources over time. The body of evidence is there, in mountains of literature. There is no single piece of "proof" I can link you to, and you have refused to research any of these issues for yourself. You are ignorant because you choose to be.

Start with The Lone Rangers essay. Read it fully, ask questions about specific processes and/or use the terms and processes he describes to search PubMed for abstracts, and find a University library that can get you whatever full articles you need. You will find that science and medicine both have been interested in vision for as long as humans have been trying to figure stuff out and there are mountains of things to go through. Anatomy, ophthalmology, neuroscience are all fields you will need to look in.

If you do the work, and are still not convinced, then fine. Many times people reach different conclusions after viewing the exact same results and evidence. Just saying "nuh uh" without looking at anything is the biggest cop out I have ever seen. How you can say you aren't just like a fundie is beyond me.

How would you know how to assess the reliability of a scientific experiment when the height of knowledge in your opinion is shit your dad said he observed?

I have listened to a lot of evidence and I don't agree that it adds up to what you believe it does. Are you now resorting to calling my father's observations "shit"? If you are, then we have to part ways.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said Lessans was infallible, nor am I basing my understanding on devotion or allegiance to him. A reflex is not the same thing as sight LadyShea. Babies don't have to hear or smell or feel to reflexively respond due to a light shining in their eyes or something that causes an autonomic response. You are making a huge leap from this type of reaction to "they can see." They do not see images that we would call normal sight. It's as simple as that.

More moving the goalposts I see - so now we are to assume there are 2 types of sight? One for reflexes, which works by detecting light (hey, that sounds like real sight!) and one for everything else?

By the way, is that the same kind of sight that creates images in the brain when we stimulate the optic nerve?

How fascinating - yet again an entire scientific discipline will have to be re-written, just so you don't have to admit that your dad made even the smallest mistake.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by NOT LadyShea

It is pretty conclusive to anyone who does not automatically assume Lessans to be infallible. The newborn reflex is well documented. It is triggered by sight - the babies cant hear or smell or feel the object coming close to their eyes. They see it, simple as that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said Lessans was infallible, nor am I basing my understanding on devotion or allegiance to him. A reflex is not the same thing as sight LadyShea. Babies don't have to hear or smell or feel to reflexively respond due to a light shining in their eyes or something that causes an autonomic response. You are making a huge leap from this type of reaction to "they can see." They do not see images that we would call normal sight. It's as simple as that.

I didn't say that. You messed up the quote tag again. That was Vivisectus.