A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course they say that. That's what afferent vision is. It's detecting only light. Light is all that matters and it is supposed to bring an image to the eye, if we happen to be in the right place at the right time.

Light is only one half of the optics "equation" to use terminology you might understand. The specifics of the light detector is the other half.

The right place and the right time are determined by the detector, in fact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No way. You're the one making stuff up to look squeaky clean. You're not squeaky clean LadyShea, and neither is your argument.

I have done no such thing. I am fabricating no such thing. Did it ever occur to you that you are the one being dishonest because you can't deal with the possibility that your attacks against Lessans have been completely wrong and misdirected?

You are not arguing against the actual scientific model of sight, you are arguing against a misrepresentation and erroneous understanding of it. That is a strawman argument. I have not been dishonest even once. You keep using a strawman despite having it pointed out to you many, many times.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, Lessans clearly thought that light physically touching the retina was not necessary for vision to occur. He thought we could see the Sun at 12:00 with our brain through our window eyes without light photons being located in our eyes.

YOU, however, have made claims that light is physically touching the retina when we see. You have claimed that light photons would be physically located on the retina in the eye at 12:00 when the Sun was turned on.

You need to support your claims, which are not claims that Lessans made at all.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All he is saying is that naming an object separates the distinguishing characteristics between this object and other objects. When this difference is seen, the name (which is a word slide that has been established in association with this object) is projected which allows for an immediate identification.

No, all he is saying is that the eyes are not sense organs. And that does not work: the brain needs to detect what is there in order to know what to project. Even when you follow your own explanation, the eye remains a sense organ.

You can waffle on about distinguishing characteristics and word slides all you want: the fact remains that in order for your version of sight to work, you need some way for the eyes to detect what is out there so that the right "word-slide" can be projected on to it.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't go changing the book. These words are interchanged throughout. It's not just changing a word or two, and I actually think it's boring to say "undeniable" all the time.

If you wrote a summary you wouldn't have to change the book. Given that people have been denying the discovery for a decade now "undeniable" probably isn't the best choice of words either. I'm sure that there are some superlatives out there that might work for a replacement that wouldn't result in such a backlash. It's as if you want to wave a red flag in front of a scientific bull just for fun. Now watch, if that red cape thing is just a myth someone will laugh at me and I'll deserve it for being too lazy to google it. It's not just you .

The standards that exist in this world won't hold in the new world, so if someone gets up to go to sleep somewhere else it will not be considered rude.

I just got called an "uppity feminazi bitch" on another forum so I should probably just stick to this old world. We don't have a spare bedroom and I don't want to sleep on the couch.

That's great that you both enjoy each other, but that's not the issue. The issue revolves around one thing and one thing only: the desire of both people. If both people enjoy the sleeping arrangement, there is no problem, but some people enjoy stretching out but feel obligated to sleep in one bed because that's what married people are supposed to do. Do you see the point I'm trying to make?

There's probably no point in going over the concept and reality of conflicting desires again since it only resulted in hilarity last time. I see your point but I don't think that relationships are remotely that simple. In your example it seems to me that one person gets what they want and the other just has to suck it up.

Why should I take out this part just because people can't believe his claim that the eyes aren't a sense organ?

Because it's factually incorrect and therefore no one takes the work seriously. You never get to present the entire book because every thread gets stuck on that point.

Mostly, we talk about our kids and grandkids, shopping and what's on sale at the grocery store. What do you expect, we're women.

I kinda meant that tongue in cheek. I actually hate shopping, especially for clothes.

Oh good. I thought that there was yet another reason why I was never going to fit into the new world. Not that everyone's kids and grandkids aren't wonderful and all but I can live without the potty training anecdotes and I'm not going if I have to talk about laundry detergent and diapers.

[Vivisectus]

PG, why don't you explain again why the desire of a person to sleep alone gets right of way over the desire of a person who desires to sleep together? I am sure Christina would enjoy hearing about that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course they say that. That's what afferent vision is. It's detecting only light. Light is all that matters and it is supposed to bring an image to the eye, if we happen to be in the right place at the right time.

Peacegirl, who is the "They" that you claim are saying this? Perhaps if you had a specific reference it could be verified. Can you find where some one is actually quoted as saying this?

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

PG, why don't you explain again why the desire of a person to sleep alone gets right of way over the desire of a person who desires to sleep together? I am sure Christina would enjoy hearing about that.

That's pretty much the core of what I don't get. Person A wants to get up and sleep alone, person B wants to sleep together but for some reason that I don't understand person A is being less selfish than person B is. It seems as though the person that wants the least has all of the power in the situation and there is nothing resembling equality when it comes to satisfying each other. Who or what decides which selfish desire gets the right of way? This is also where it feels the most sexist to me and maybe I'm reading too much into it but there seems to be an assumption that it's the guy that wants to zip up and go satisfy some more desires and the woman that wants him to stay home and keep her company. What happens if the woman wants a quickie and then wants to go shoot some pool and the guy wants her to stay home with him?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really need to read this again to understand how words help us identify. This doesn't mean that you can't picture someone in your mind without the name attached to it. After analyzing this carefully, you will see that this is how the human brain works, unlike a dog's.

p. 124 To understand this better let us
observe my granddaughter learning words.

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees
various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of
differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in preference
to another, or may prefer to play with one toy over another, but in so
far as she is concerned all she sees are a bunch of objects. However,
as her eyes are focused on one of our canine friends I shall repeat the
word ‘dog’ rapidly in her ear. When she turns away I stop. This will
be continued until she looks for him when hearing the word which
indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object has
been established and a photograph taken. Soon this relation is
formed which makes her conscious of a particular difference that exists
in the external world. As she learns more and more words such as cat,
horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of these
differences which no one can deny because they are seen through
words or slides that circumscribe accurately these various bits of
substance. This is exactly how we learn words only I am speeding up
the process.

Before long she learns house, tree, car, chair, door,
kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth, eyes, hair, girl,
boy, and so on. Until she learns the word cat she could very easily
point to a dog when hearing that word because a negative of the
difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox cannot be
differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the difference has been
developed. She also learns the names of individuals: Mommy,
Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan, Justin, Shoshana, Adam,
Jennifer, Meredith, etc. My granddaughter can identify her mother
from hundreds and hundreds of photographs because the difference is
a negative that not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not.
In other words, as she learns these names and words her brain takes a
picture of the objects symbolized and when she sees these differences
again she projects the word or name, but the brain will not take any
picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these differences
that exist in the external world which are not identifiable through
taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable only because they are
related to words, names or slides that we project for recognition. If we
would lose certain names or words we would have amnesia because
when we see these ordinarily familiar differences we are unable to
project the words or names necessary for recognition.

Anecdotical evidence again please, Does this sound even vaguely familiar to anyone who has raised children. I've raised 3 children and have been the 3rd parent for 2 grandchildren and this is not the way it happens, it's just silly to even think that this is the way it happens.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have to assume that Lessans is right in order to work this observation backwards.

This was Lessans problem with the whole book, he would imagine a situation, and then invent a world where that situation would work. He believed that his vision was so desirable, that it must be true, and so the conditions that would bring about that world, must also be true. Apparently Lessans watched people and read about them in books and then assigned motives for their actions from his own imagination, never once thinking that others could have different motives than his would be in the same situation. I have known people like that who will see some action on your part and then procede to tell you why you are doing it, and then call you a lier or ignorant of your own motives when you try to correct them. The other factor is the idea that if others are not just like you are and like the same things that you do, then there must be something wrong with them. Lessans was projecting his own twisted world view onto everyone else and assuming that inside, everyone was just like he was. Now Peacegirl has inherited that flaw and is projecting her own twisted thought process onto everyone else in the world. This concept doesn't just apply to vision, it is apparent throughout the whole book that Lessans just imagined a world where his own preferences would be the norm. A desperate attempt by a warped individual to feel normal, by projecting his own perversion onto everyone else as being normal.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can light bring an image to the eyes when the light has dispersed to the point where no photons can be resolved on the retina/film?

How far away is that point, peacegirl? Since you are choosing to ignore the calculation, I'll be explicit: there is no point. An inverse square function never reaches zero; there will always be some photons reaching your camera per second. That's why telescopes work. That's why bigger telescopes are better (more light!), and why you can see things further away by waiting (eventually you get enough light from things millions of light years away).

Lessans is wrong, and your claim that inverse square law supports him is wrong. It contradicts him, and you.

[thedoc]

The inverse square law states that the light from an image will disperse but there are always photons from a distant source. Instruments have collected photons from objects almost 14 billion light years away, which is almost to the begining of the universe as we know it. The 'Cosmic Microwave Background' radiation is light believed to be from the Big bang itself. There is no point in this universe where there are no photons ariving from a distant source, but there are sources that are so far away that the light has not had time to get here yet, but it's on it's way even if the source no longer exists. In fact many of the objects that astronomers observe, no longer exist.

[Angakuk]

I have a question for peacegirl.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Lessans is correct about the role that language plays in visual recognition, how do you know that dogs don't have the requisite language skills? How do you know that dogs don't use doglish to associate a name with an image? In short, how much do you actually know about what it is like to be a dog?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

That's pretty much the core of what I don't get. Person A wants to get up and sleep alone, person B wants to sleep together but for some reason that I don't understand person A is being less selfish than person B is. It seems as though the person that wants the least has all of the power in the situation and there is nothing resembling equality when it comes to satisfying each other. Who or what decides which selfish desire gets the right of way? This is also where it feels the most sexist to me and maybe I'm reading too much into it but there seems to be an assumption that it's the guy that wants to zip up and go satisfy some more desires and the woman that wants him to stay home and keep her company. What happens if the woman wants a quickie and then wants to go shoot some pool and the guy wants her to stay home with him?

What it really boils down to is that Lessans enjoyed a quick rumpty dump wherever he could get it, and then wanted to be left alone. No cuddling or snuggling for him, so that must have been the case for every other red blooded American male, and since America is the standard of the world, it would apply world wide. That would make him really, really, really narrow minded, unfortunately not all that uncommon.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I have a question for peacegirl.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Lessans is correct about the role that language plays in visual recognition, how do you know that dogs don't have the requisite language skills? How do you know that dogs don't use doglish to associate a name with an image? In short, how much do you actually know about what it is like to be a dog?

Well we all know that dogs speak english when people aren't around, just watch a Disney movie, 101 Dalmatians, Lady and the Tramp, and other wild animals, just watch Bambie, or Jungle Book. 'Doglish! really, just how silly can you get?

BTW, speaking about silly, what is your sermon about this Sun? Fathers Day?

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What it really boils down to is that Lessans enjoyed a quick rumpty dump wherever he could get it, and then wanted to be left alone. No cuddling or snuggling for him, so that must have been the case for every other red blooded American male, and since America is the standard of the world, it would apply world wide. That would make him really, really, really narrow minded, unfortunately not all that uncommon.

I'm sure that peacegirl probably feels like I'm getting hung up on a minor point because it's funny but what I'm really trying to figure out is how meeting someone's emotional needs fits into the picture and whether or not an emotional desire can take precedence over one pertaining to physical comfort or intellectual entertainment.

Peacegirl, in your own words why do you think that a person might want their partner to spend the entire night in bed with them? Forget about the book for a moment and just answer from your own experience and the experiences of people that you know. Maybe once I understand your own thinking on the matter I'll be better able to understand how conflicting emotional needs play into the big picture.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is only one half of the optics "equation" to use terminology you might understand. The specifics of the light detector is the other half.

The right place and the right time are determined by the detector, in fact.

You are not arguing against the actual scientific model of sight, you are arguing against a misrepresentation and erroneous understanding of it. That is a strawman argument. I have not been dishonest even once. You keep using a strawman despite having it pointed out to you many, many times.

How am I arguing against a misrepresentation of the scientific model?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

How far away is that point, peacegirl? Since you are choosing to ignore the calculation, I'll be explicit: there is no point. An inverse square function never reaches zero; there will always be some photons reaching your camera per second. That's why telescopes work. That's why bigger telescopes are better (more light!), and why you can see things further away by waiting (eventually you get enough light from things millions of light years away).

There is no way we can communicate, seriously. You have certain ideas which are not consistent with Lessans' claim, yet you are taking for granted that they are true. You say there will always be some photons reaching your camera per second, but what if the light from that source is so dispersed that it fades out, just like sound fades out if it's too far away. Telescopes work because the object is magnified, which means there's more light on the retina, but the object is always in view or there would be nothing to magnify.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Lessans is wrong, and your claim that inverse square law supports him is wrong. It contradicts him, and you.

No it doesn't, but you can believe what you want.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1 and 2 you said we cannot visualize a person without a name
3 you said we can

Which is it?

The word or name given to any bit of material substance helps to distinguish it from other bits of substance. There are thousands upon thousands of word relations we have in our memory bank, so whenever we see a particular set of characteristics, the name that was given to these features will immediately be projected onto that object which allows recognition to take place. If we did not take a photograph of the object with the word, it doesn't mean we couldn't see that one face looks different than another, or one object looks different than another, but the word would help us to identify it. Why do we label objects if not to identify them?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We cannot see what we cannot see, this is true. It's also meaningless without the mechanism. Optics explains what can or cannot be seen and why it can or cannot be seen as per the scientific model of sight....hint: it has to do with the specifics of the light detector.

You have no mechanism or explanation for efferent vision, relying on "we can see what we can see because it can be seen". What is large enough? What is bright enough? What is close enough? How is "enough" determined (other than "if we can see it, it is enough" which is vacuous) and what determines enough?

It is not vacuous at all. As I said early on, if an object is in a straight line with the eye, but slightly out of optical range, why is it that the light that the object reflects is never resolved unless the object comes into visual range; the range at which that piece of material substance can be seen which coincidentally happens to be the range that allows the light to be resolved.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No they don't say that. This is a strawman, meaning it is not anyone's actual position or claim you are refuting. You are battling a fake claim.

So tell me what they do say? Don't they say that images of a past event can reach the eye due to light long after the event is gone? Isn't that what this whole dispute is about?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course we identify people through our experiences of them. DUH! That's not what you said was required though, you said a name is required.

Additionally, I don't use language to visualize dropping my son off at school and seeing a man there. In my mind it's all pictures. Only when I want to identify him to others do I need to use language, as I cannot share my mental images with other brains telepathically, only describe them using a shared language.

As I said, you can visualize someone and not need a name, but the name given to an object or set of features makes it easier to distinguish those characteristics that make that object or person unique and easily identifiable. Even in the case of identifying a set of twins, if one twin has a birthmark and the other does not, this distinguishing feature will have been photographed with a particular name, and that name will be projected onto that individual which allows for a correct identification.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dogs may be able to easily visualize the person that feeds them or pets them or takes them for walks in the same way, but they can't describe their visualizations to us because we don't share a common language.

If they could visualize a person it would seem to me that they would also be able to recognize them from a photograph or still video, which I am convinced they cannot do. If you need more evidence, that's fine. A child seeing many many photographs is able to distinguish her mother from all others because of this negative that has been photographed, and when those characteristics are seen, the word mother is projected. Dogs are unable to make this connection so no matter how many pictures they see, they will be unable to identify their master. Yes, it does involve language, which dogs don't have. They were not made to; that's why their hearing and their sense of smell is so much better than ours.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I am asking you to explain efferent vision. Can you define "enough" without being tautological? You can only seem to say "If we can see it, we can see it". That is vacuous and meaningless.

Assuming a conclusion is right then working backwards is faith, not at all scientific or mathematical. It is also fallacious reasoning of the highest order.

It has nothing to do with faith, but if you start from the afferent perspective, it's no wonder you don't understand. It's like putting a round hole into a square peg and it will never fit. Efferent means conveyed outward. All the senses are afferent, meaning conveyed inward. In order to see an object (the real substance) in real time there are certain requirements, just like there are certain requirements in the afferent account. One of those requirements is that the object must be within visual range. I see a tree outside my window because it's within my visual range. I can go up and touch it. This is not tautological which you're unsuccessfully trying to make it appear. The other is that there has to be enough light surrounding the object because light is a condition of sight. Without light we can see nothing. According to this model, light does not have to be surrounding the viewer for the object to be seen, only the object. This is due to the fact that we do not have to wait for light to arrive in order to see the object. All we need is these two requirements and this puts an object in optical range. If it is far away, we will get a few photons on our retina. If it is close up, we will get more photons on our retina. If it is out of range, we will get no photons on our retina and no matter how much light is present, we will never get an image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, all he is saying is that the eyes are not sense organs. And that does not work: the brain needs to detect what is there in order to know what to project. Even when you follow your own explanation, the eye remains a sense organ.

You can waffle on about distinguishing characteristics and word slides all you want: the fact remains that in order for your version of sight to work, you need some way for the eyes to detect what is out there so that the right "word-slide" can be projected on to it.

That is absolutely true. We can see differences, but the word helps us to identify and categorize. There's no doubt about how language works in relation to objects, or we wouldn't need language. Language is a cognitive skill that is specific to humans. I don't believe a dog can visualize because he can't form a relation between object and name, but he can identify through smell and sound. My dog just had surgery and before they brought her out, she heard me talking to the receptionist way down the hall and she started barking like crazy. She recognized the inflection in my voice and responded. She will do the same with smell, but when I walk in the house, she is cautious until she gets close enough to recognize through her sense of smell that it's me. I believe he is accurate when he writes this, so I will repeat it:

In other words, as she learns these names and words her brain takes a
picture of the objects symbolized and when she sees these differences
again she projects the word or name, but the brain will not take any
picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these differences
that exist in the external world which are not identifiable through
taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable only because they are
related to words, names or slides that we project for recognition.

[The Lone Ranger]

Remember how you repeatedly said that if anyone invented a bionic eye that allowed its user to see by bypassing the retina, this would prove that Lessans was wrong about how we see?


Guess what?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

BTW, speaking about silly, what is your sermon about this Sun? Fathers Day?

The sermon title is "Saints and Sinners" so, yeah, it is basically about .