A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

*BUMP*

Goalposts moving in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...

Michael, sorry about not responding to your PM, I've just been offline as much as possible lately. I'll drop you a PM tomorrow.

Speaking of which, I briefly scanned something today or yesterday, somewhere, about how these bionic eyes may soon get so good that they will provide higher resolution imagery than our own mundane eyes. I'll try to dig it up. The wonders of real science.

The Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System can provide sight -- the detection of light -- to people who have gone blind from degenerative eye diseases like macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa. Ten percent of people over the age of 55 suffer from various stages of macular degeneration. Retinitis pigmentosa is an inherited disease that affects about 1.5 million people around the globe. Both diseases damage the eyes' photoreceptors, the cells at the back of the retina that perceive light patterns and pass them on to the brain in the form of nerve impulses, where the impulse patterns are then interpreted as images. The Argus II system takes the place of these photoreceptors.

HowStuffWorks "How does a "bionic eye" allow blind people to see?"

[peacegirl]

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?

It's not about whose desire is the least. How can you measure that? Anyone who has a desire is going to believe their desire is the most pressing. This is about who has the right-of-way when desires conflict. But the interesting thing about this is that in the new world both parties will want to please the other, but the other will never want to take advantage of their spouse's generosity, so they would only ask favors of their spouse when they know their spouse wouldn't mind doing that favor, or wouldn't be sacrificing their own desire not to do it, as this is the source of so many arguments and displays selfishness which no one wants to display if they want a happy marriage. You really need to read the book instead of trying to understand it from what people are saying in this thread. They have no clue what they're talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then where did those photons come from? From the Sun? Then if they are at the retina at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited, when were they located at the Sun?

I've been asking you to address this point for months now.

No-one understands it because it is incoherent. How can anything ever be anywhere without getting there? What does that even mean? Can you give an example from another context, where object X is at location Y without ever having gotten to Y? Some kind of analogy perhaps?

Wouldn't X have to have either always been at Y, or have come into existence at Y for this to make any kind of sense? How else could X be at Y without getting to Y?

Actually, there is no travel time in this model which I have said countless times. All that has to occur is light to be intense enough to allow the object (in this case the Sun) to be seen. I'm leaving it at that Spacemonkey because we're never going to have a common denominator to discuss this model, but that does not mean this model isn't plausible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And how do the photons get there?

Do you know what you just said? You just said:

"I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when they haven't reached the eye."

That's what you just said!

Yes, O peacegirl, this is VERY difficult for us lamebrains to understand! Do enlighten us, you nutter nonpareil! How can photons be at the eye when they haven't reached the eye?

Please do explain this!

Why did you come back? Did you miss me?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, there is no travel time in this model which I have said countless times. All that has to occur is light to be intense enough to allow the object (in this case the Sun) to be seen. I'm leaving it at that Spacemonkey because we're never going to have a common denominator to discuss this model, but that does not mean this model isn't plausible.

Sorry, but leaving it at that is not even remotely acceptable, as I didn't ask you anything at all about travel time and you've completely ignored everything I did just ask you.

So then where did those photons come from? From the Sun? Then if they are at the retina at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited, when were they located at the Sun?

How can anything ever be anywhere without getting there? What does that even mean? Can you give an example from another context, where object X is at location Y without ever having gotten to Y? Some kind of analogy perhaps?
Wouldn't X have to have either always been at Y, or have come into existence at Y for this to make any kind of sense? How else could X be at Y without getting to Y?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

He never talked about someone's motives, so what are you talking about thedoc? He only said that people move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is true regardless of what their motives are. The eyes have nothing to do with his own preferences. You're so out the door it's hard reading your posts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

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.

You're still not getting it. Each partner would do everything possible to please the other one, and the desire of the other person would take precedence. But that partner would never want to take advantage of his partner's generosity. The example of the woman in labor wanting her husband to be there, do you actually think Vivisectus is right in his analysis that the man would rather go play golf? This is so disturbing to me because he has taken this concept to the absurd, and the sad part is he thinks he's right and he's spreading around a false understanding.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

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.

Sure, I think a lot of people want to cuddle in bed. I have certainly wanted that, but my husband didn't like to cuddle. I learned early on that his desire not to cuddle is not placing any demands on me, so he had the right-of-way. The only difference is that, in the new world as opposed to this world, he would have done what I wanted to please me, but I wouldn't want him to sacrifice his desire to stretch and be left alone because that would be selfish of me to only think of my desire. If he was on the fence about whether to cuddle, he may have stayed a little while longer to make me feel loved and then go into his own bed. Bottom line, this right-of-way system prevents arguments, and arguments aren't good for a happy marriage.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not about whose desire is the least. How can you measure that? Anyone who has a desire is going to believe their desire is the most pressing. This is about who has the right-of-way when desires conflict. But the interesting thing about this is that in the new world both parties will want to please the other, but the other will never want to take advantage of their spouse's generosity, so they would only ask favors of their spouse when they know their spouse wouldn't mind doing that favor, or wouldn't be sacrificing their own desire not to do it, as this is the source of so many arguments and displays selfishness which no one wants to display if they want a happy marriage. You really need to read the book instead of trying to understand it from what people are saying in this thread. They have no clue what they're talking about.

So in the new world, there are no more conflicting desire? No-one will want to sleep alone when they know another wants to sleep together, or want to go see a movie in stead of helping cook dinner?

Then what is the point of the right-of-way system as it is described int he book?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Absolutely correct. One cannot communicate with you, because you are invincibly willfully ignorant.

Nope! No one is taking for granted they are true. They ARE true, and we know this because they have been observed to be true literally for hundreds of years.

Goddamn but you are one big cup of cockamamie dumb.

Light does not fade out, as has been explained to you a bazillion times. Nor does it "run out of steam," as you so idiotically put it a few pages back.

WTF do you think, peacegirl? That like a car, photons can only go so far before they stall like a car on the road, and then to get moving again someone has to give them "photon gasoline"? Maybe at the Mobil station, eh? (get it? "Mobil"? )

A photon that is not absorbed will travel forever at speed c in a vacuum. That is why we can see proto-galaxies dating back to shortly after the Big Bang era -- and why we are seeing them as they were thirteen billion years ago.

Oh, I see! So when I look at the moon in a telescope, the telescope acts like a tire pump, and reaches up into the sky to inflate the moon like a big basketball so I can see it bigger and more clearly? How often do they let you out of the straitjacket to hunt and peck at your computer keyboard?

An eyepiece lens takes the bright light from the focus of the objective lens or primary mirror and "spreads it out" (magnifies it) to take up a large portion of the retina. This is the same principle that a magnifying glass (lens) uses; it takes a small image on the paper and spreads it out over the retina of your eye so that it looks big.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/telescope1.htm

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

Originally Posted by Davidm

Light propagation via the inverse square law shows that your father's claims were wrong. That you couldn't solve the equation that Dragar gave you is very telling. You didn't even understand the equation, did you?

We're not waiting for light to arrive, therefore it doesn't matter how far light travels. Time in this account is NOT a factor. Do you not get that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet nothing at all is conveyed outward in your own account of 'efferent' vision.

It is tautological so long as you are defining visual range as the range within which something can be seen. And the afferent account agrees that things must be within range in order to be seen.

The physical object Spacemonkey. The physical object must be within range. The afferent account agrees that the image must within range due to light, not the actual thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to this model, light does not have to be surrounding the viewer for the object to be seen, only the object. [...] If it is far away, we will get a few photons on our retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Contradiction. If there are photons at the retina, then light is not only surrounding the object but is also at the retina.

It's not a contradiction at all because light surrounding the object puts the light at the retina IN THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT. That's why it doesn't make sense to you, because you are constantly coming from the afferent account position without realizing it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The afferent account agrees that you will not get an image of things that are out of range.

That's not true because this account doesn't depend on the object at all, only the light that the object reflects.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you still can't explain how light instantly at the retina when the Sun is first ignited could have come from the Sun.

I have gone over this too many times to count. He was making a distinction between seeing the Sun before the photons arrive on Earth (which is not necessary in this account), and seeing the Sun when it meets the requirements of efferent vision (which is brightness and size).

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The physical object Spacemonkey. The physical object must be within range.

The afferent account agrees that the physical object must be in range in order to be seen - at the time the light leaves its surface. What the afferent account does not agree with is what you are trying but failing to express, which is that the physical object must also still be in existence and in range at the time it is seen. The afferent account doesn't agree with this because it is not true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The afferent account agrees that the image must within range due to light, not the actual thing.

Are you seriously back to arguing against traveling images? There are no traveling images in the efferent or afferent account.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a contradiction at all because light surrounding the object puts the light at the retina IN THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT.

It is a contradiction to say that light only has to be at the object, when you are also saying that the light will be and must be at the eyes. Either light has to be at the object only and not at the eyes, or it has to be both at the object and at the eyes. At the moment you are saying that light both does and does not have to be at the eyes for us to see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have gone over this too many times to count...

You mean you've run away from it too many times to count. Never once have you directly addressed this problem. You've been evading it for months, and you've just evaded it once more. If the light at the retina (when the Sun is first ignited) came from the Sun, then when was it located there (at the Sun)?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Ah, no argument, just assertion. Not so much a fan of maths when it contradicts your sacred beliefs, are you peacegirl?

An inverse square function never hits zero. Lessans is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't understand it because you are being inconsistent. You have said many times that the laws of physics are not violated, yet if it is the case that when the Sun is turned on at 12:00 noon that light photons are instantly located on the retina at 12:00 noon, then efferent vision is not compatible with the laws of physics.

That is false. The laws of physics allow efferent vision to see the Sun if it meets the requirements before photons reach Earth. You need to delve into this with the intention of understanding instead of condemning and telling me that it does something it does not do; violate physics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light photons cannot be located somewhere unless they came into existence there or traveled there. The eyes cannot make light photons teleport...light has immutable properties and instant bilocation is not one of them.

Again, this is not about teleportation. This is about your position, which excludes this phenomenon. The phenomenon exists, even if you don't see it coming from the position you're coming from.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans never said anything about where the light must be located in order to see, he seemed to imply it only needs to be surrounding or illuminating the object, not in physical contact with the retinas. Where do you see anything to that effect in his writings?

Light is not the issue, that's why. Light is a condition and you are making it paramount, which is exactly what is being contested. Do you not see the problem here? If the object can be seen, the photons are at the retina. He did not believe in magic LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you sure you want to stick with this instantly at the eye thing? If so, you need to account for the location of light photons prior to them being in physical contact with the retina as well as explain exactly when they were at that location and how they came to change locations from wherever they originated to the new location of the retina.

Yes I want to stick with the eye thing, as you derogatorily call it. Now what? Are you going to dismiss this claim out of hand? Oh well, you're not the one that is meant to understand it, and that's okay.

[Vivisectus]

You're still not getting it. Each partner would do everything possible to please the other one, and the desire of the other person would take precedence. But that partner would never want to take advantage of his partner's generosity. The example of the woman in labor wanting her husband to be there, do you actually think Vivisectus is right in his analysis that the man would rather go play golf? This is so disturbing to me because he has taken this concept to the absurd, and the sad part is he thinks he's right and he's spreading around a false understanding.

If you apply the right-of-way system, then you can get pretty absurd results. Your solution to this is to say "Ah yes, but that just would not happen because all people would be nice."

And yet this very system is what the book proposes to ensure that relationships stay equitable and fair... but apparently it only works if it is only applied when the result is equitable and fair.

It seems we have hit yet another chicken-and-egg problem in LessansLand.

Sure, I think a lot of people want to cuddle in bed. I have certainly wanted that, but my husband didn't like to cuddle. I learned early on that his desire not to cuddle is not placing any demands on me, so he had the right-of-way. The only difference is that, in the new world as opposed to this world, he would have done what I wanted to please me, but I wouldn't want him to sacrifice his desire to stretch and be left alone because that would be selfish of me to only think of my desire. If he was on the fence about whether to cuddle, he may have stayed a little while longer to make me feel loved and then go into his own bed. Bottom line, this right-of-way system prevents arguments, and arguments aren't good for a happy marriage.

So... your desire for a cuddle was not as important as your ex-husbands desire not to have one because of... what? Why is you giving up your desire not considered "placing any demands on you", while his giving up his is? The only difference I can see is the number of people required... and as we have seen, that does not work as a way to determine which desire should get preference.

Can you perhaps explain in clear and precise language when a desire is considered to place demands on another person, and when it is not?

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you read the book you will see that acording to Lessans it is always the mans desires that have the right of way, 'It's in the book'.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Therefor I present the tentative conclusion that it is the number of people required to bring about the desire that is the factor that decides if a desire should get right of way. If it is something you can do wether another is there or not, then that desire gets right of way. If it is something that requires another to participate, and that person is required to sacrifice a desire to do so, then that is an infringement.

I have the suspicion that whatever the scenario, what would appeal to Lessans is what has right of way but your possible conclusion is a good one too. That is a common thread running through the examples.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The example of the woman in labor wanting her husband to be there, do you actually think Vivisectus is right in his analysis that the man would rather go play golf?

I dunno - I saw a guy turn on a football game while his wife was in labor so anything is possible.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Sure, I think a lot of people want to cuddle in bed. I have certainly wanted that, but my husband didn't like to cuddle. I learned early on that his desire not to cuddle is not placing any demands on me, so he had the right-of-way. The only difference is that, in the new world as opposed to this world, he would have done what I wanted to please me, but I wouldn't want him to sacrifice his desire to stretch and be left alone because that would be selfish of me to only think of my desire. If he was on the fence about whether to cuddle, he may have stayed a little while longer to make me feel loved and then go into his own bed.

I was thinking last night about how all of these sex and relationship examples are hard to nail down because satisfaction is so subjective that there really is no right or wrong answer about what will satisfy someone's desires. If it didn't bother you that your husband wanted to sleep alone then I can't fault you for that even though it would bother me. Let's try a more straightforward example. Both person A and person B want to go see a movie together. Person A wants to see Superman and Person B wants to see Batman so there isn't any significant difference in style between the movies and they both like to see action and lots of stuff getting blown up so neither is going to get scared or go deaf from the explosions. It's the first movie that they've ever seen together so it has nothing to do with whose turn it is to choose. Which person has the right of way?

Bottom line, this right-of-way system prevents arguments, and arguments aren't good for a happy marriage.

I'm getting the unfortunate sense that in real life this would translate to the more dominant partner with the strongest personality and least desire to spend time with their spouse always getting the right of way and the less dominant one bottling up his or her emotions and resentment in order to prevent the argument. That's not so great for a happy marriage either.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a contradiction at all because light surrounding the object puts the light at the retina IN THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT. That's why it doesn't make sense to you, because you are constantly coming from the afferent account position without realizing it.

The contradiction has nothing to do with the "direction we see", the problem here is that you(not Lessans) have light photons bi-locating by placing them on the retina of the eye as well as at the object. You need to explain how that is possible, rather than just asserting that it is so, as it is incompatible with the laws of physics.

Lessans didn't address this, he knew the light photons must travel 8.5 minutes to get to Earth, yet he thought we could see the Sun at the moment it was ignited....obviously without any light photons being located on our retinas.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is false. The laws of physics allow efferent vision to see the Sun if it meets the requirements before photons reach Earth. You need to delve into this with the intention of understanding instead of condemning and telling me that it does something it does not do; violate physics.

The laws of physics do not allow light photons to be in two separate locations at the same time. The retina on Earth is a physical location, the Sun is a different physical location. That distance between them physically exists. It can't simply be handwaved away.

You have two different claims here you keep switching between. Seeing the Sun instantly is one claim, the one Lessans made. He didn't say anything about photons being on retinas on Earth at noon, he said only that we would see the Sun at noon before any photons arrived. He clearly didn't think light needed to be in physical contact with the retina for seeing to occur. He argued against it in fact.

Saying that photons are instantly at the retina exactly as the Sun is turned on is a separate claim, one that you've made. YOUR claim is the one that violates physics.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is not the issue, that's why. Light is a condition and you are making it paramount, which is exactly what is being contested. Do you not see the problem here? If the object can be seen, the photons are at the retina. He did not believe in magic LadyShea.

Light is the issue when you say "photons are at the retina". You are making a claim about light. You need to support that claim, or explain it. You are making an assertion, again, and not backing it up with anything.

Conditions must be explained and supported too.

Yes I want to stick with the eye thing, as you derogatorily call it. Now what?

I said "instantly at the eye" thing. Meaning your claim that photons are instantly at the eye when we see, as well as being at the object. As to now what, now you must explain how the light photons come to be located at the eye at the same time they are located at the object. If you want to stick to your claim, you must support or explain it, because as it is you have light bi-locating which is not compatible with the known properties of light or the laws of physics.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1135693][quote=Spacemonkey;1135563]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

12:00. I don't understand what you're getting at Spacemonkey. Light travels, but the object that is seen is not time related.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And how do the photons get there?

Do you know what you just said? You just said:

"I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when they haven't reached the eye."

That's what you just said!

Yes, O peacegirl, this is VERY difficult for us lamebrains to understand! Do enlighten us, you nutter nonpareil! How can photons be at the eye when they haven't reached the eye?

Please do explain this!

I have explained this over and over and over and over again. We're not depending on light for the image. We're seeing the object directly. In the efferent account, which is the exact opposite of the afferent account, light only has to be surrounding the object to be seen. Distance and time are not factors (which you can't seem to reconcile); only size and brightness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't understand it because you are being inconsistent. You have said many times that the laws of physics are not violated, yet if it is the case that when the Sun is turned on at 12:00 noon that light photons are instantly located on the retina at 12:00 noon, then efferent vision is not compatible with the laws of physics.

Light photons cannot be located somewhere unless they came into existence there or traveled there. The eyes cannot make light photons teleport...light has immutable properties and instant bilocation is not one of them.

Lessans never said anything about where the light must be located in order to see, he seemed to imply it only needs to be surrounding or illuminating the object, not in physical contact with the retinas. Where do you see anything to that effect in his writings?

Are you sure you want to stick with this instantly at the eye thing? If so, you need to account for the location of light photons prior to them being in physical contact with the retina as well as explain exactly when they were at that location and how they came to change locations from wherever they originated to the new location of the retina.

He didn't believe in magic LadyShea.

Now tell me, did it ever
occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally
accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately
symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult
since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact,
it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that the eyes are not a
sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light, is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

This entire account is predicated on the fact that the object (not the light) is within physical range. Do you understand what that means? It means that we're not waiting for anything to arrive. If we can see the object, the light that allows us to see the object has to already be at the eye. You are still thinking in terms of distance and the time it takes for light to arrive, which doesn't play a part in this account.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

OK, so if he demands that she satisfy his desire to go to another bed and stretch out even though she would have to sacrifice her own desire to have him stay, why is he not the selfish one? She isn't making any demands on him at all since he doesn't even have to move, especially if they save that money for the second bed and get one giant king sized one so they wouldn't even bump into each other accidentally.

You're getting confused. She is not satisfying his desire to go to another bed. He is satisfying his own desire to go to another bed. Once you get that straight, let me know and I'll answer the rest of your post.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

According to the inverse square law, that never happens.

Do you want to claim the inverse square law is wrong, now? You sure latched onto it when you mistakenly thought it helped your case!

It still does help my case. Our eyes see exactly what optics tells us we should see. It doesn't change optics at all. The farther away an a celestial body is, the smaller it appears due to the inverse square law. The closer it is to us, the larger the object will appear due to the inverse square law.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sound waves are mechanical in nature, and only travel through a medium; liquid, gas, or solid. They travel through mediums until absorbed, and can be reflected, or transmitted just as other waves. However, sound waves cannot travel in a vacuum, so cannot travel forever in space.

Light doesn't need a medium to travel through, so can travel forever.

That's one of the reasons light works differently than sound. There is nothing being carried. It is assumed that light (the basket) brings the image or pattern (the non-absorbed photons) to the eye through space/time independent of the object, but it doesn't.

The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums
whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of
light to impinge on our optic nerve. It can be easily demonstrated at
the birth of a child that the eyes are not a sense organ when it can be
seen that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the wide open
eyes because absolutely nothing is impinging on the optic nerve,
although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get a
reaction.

<snip>

Since it takes less time for the sound
from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand feet away
than when five thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred
with the object sending a picture of itself on the waves of light. If it
was possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet
as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there
would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the
first time because the picture would be in the process of being
transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do
not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the
optic nerve.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And while we are on the subject of books,

That is sooo funny! Thanks for posting it again!!