Of course not. Please don't take this to the absurd. What this does is makes you remember things beforehand so that you don't have to impose on anyone. Asking favors of others (things you can do for yourself) will be rarely requested which will make the other want to ask if there is anything they can do for you. You, in turn, would never take advantage of their generosity. It's amazing how you remember things when you don't have someone to pick up the slack. By remembering to do certain things for yourself, it lessens his load. He might be exhausted and even going to the store (which he would willingly do because he wants to show his love) may be burdensome. I know that when I'm tired the slightest request from anyone, which appears simple to them, is not simple to me. It's one more thing to do when all I want is to get home and jump in bed.
Let's say you didn't forget anything. Let's say the store is out of something you needed. Your spouse calls and the following conversation ensues
"Hello, darling, how is your day?"
"It's wonderful dear. I have done most of the shopping, and was just putting away things before I head out for the store again. Store X didn't have an item so I must go to store Y to secure it"
"Oh my dearest love, Store Y is right on my way home, allow me to pick the item up for you and save you a trip"
Can she accept his loving offer, or would that be taking advantage?
Of course not. Please don't take this to the absurd.
People might be motivated to be a bit more polite to you if you responded in kind instead of trying to be insulting. You're on a discussion board, not giving a lecture which is a good thing because if you were a decent teacher this thread wouldn't be this long.
Quote:
What this does is makes you remember things beforehand so that you don't have to impose on anyone.
The minute after I posted that I thought "damn, she's going to wiggle out by saying that it's rude to forget things since in the new world we're all either going to have to be perfect or be selfish". New scenario - a plumbing disaster has occurred in our tenant's cabin, neither he nor I know how to fix it but my husband will know how and is the one that will be doing the work. Is it OK to call him at work so that he can stop at the hardware store on his way home or should I go take a plumbing class that afternoon so that I can avoid imposing on him? Should I just let the septic tank back up into the cabin and tell the tenant that he's being selfish by placing an obligation on us to fix it? He could probably have taken a plumbing class too and not ruined our day by telling us about it. There's also the option of not interrupting my husband and letting him drive all the way home and then back to town again for the parts. It's no one's fault that the plumbing broke - shit just gets old and plumbing is his job, not mine. There's also a pragmatic angle. We're a team in terms of paying for and taking care of a big old country place. It's not a particularly good use of our combined time and money for me to drive for an hour to get something that takes him 3 minutes and no extra gas when I could be stacking wood or clearing brush. How do I know which is the least selfish use of my time?
I sure hope that this new world comes with detailed operating instructions. I'm already exhausted from thinking about it.
Quote:
I know that when I'm tired the slightest request from anyone, which appears simple to them, is not simple to me. It's one more thing to do when all I want is to get home and jump in bed.
That sure doesn't sound very loving to me - in fact it sounds downright selfish. Didn't your family ever do anything for each other that they didn't feel like doing? Did you make your kids clean their rooms even though they had to go to school?
Quote:
And it's so nice that your husband copes with your mom. How endearing.
It gets worse if he ignores her. It's endearing to me that he's developed that practical survival skill.
When it comes to objects, we do not have to wait for light to arrive because the image is not in the light. Danggggg, why can't you get this? The object is already in the field of view, which means the photons are already at the film.
No, you're still not getting it. You have to work backwards to understand this. IF THE OBJECT IS SEEN, that means that the light is already at the eye or we wouldn't be able to see the object.
You refuse to understand what I'm saying, or you are incapable of understanding what I'm saying. I'm not sure which one. If we are taking a picture of the object in real time, there is no waiting for light to arrive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Not at all: I understand your point of view perfectly. I am just pointing out that you contradict yourself by saying there are photons at the retina when no light has reached the earth yet.
No I am not, because efferent vision allows for this. The afferent account does not, and that's the position you're coming from whether you realize it or not.
Of course we don't have to wait. Film and retinas work the same way because they use the same light. If an object is seen from a camera, the non-absorbed photons are already at the lens because the object is in the camera's field of view.
Just remember that this is not about distance and light. It's about the object. If the object (not the light) is within one's optical range, and enough light is surrounding the object, the conditions will be met such that we will see the object. That means the light is already at the film/retina or we wouldn't be able to see the object. It would be out of visual range and there would be no resolution.
Peacegirl I think that most people here get what you are trying to say but they don't get what you are not saying, and that is when we look at something, according to you, the photons or image of that object is at our retina, but what you are not saying is how do the photons come in contact with the retina. How does the image of the object, the photons that surround it, instantly arrive at the retina or camera, just saying that it is due to the way efferent vision works, is not a sufficient explination. You need to detail the exact mechanism of how the photons that surround the object can come in contact with the retina or camera photo receptors. Just saying that it happens, is an assertion, you need to say how it happens.
I would still like to know why Peacegirls desire to cuddle is infringing, and het ex-husbands desire not to is not. All I see is two desires that cannot both be satisfied at the same time: what exactly justifies giving one right-of-way without looking at the context?
I see no reason not to think that you had just as much right to a cuddle as your husband had the right not to feel forced to supply one...
So what makes one an infringement, and what makes the other perfectly ok?
So ... how 'bout those bionic eyes which are now good enough to allow their users to recognize and distinguish between different faces, and read?
You know -- the very things you said would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision?
Wait, let me guess: "Something else must be going on," and they're not really seeing; they just think they are, right?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are interpreting the patterns on a screen, just like when someone makes a pattern on your back with his finger. That is not real vision, I'm sorry. Until it's proven that they can actually see the object, not interpret the pattern which is a representation of the real thing, we're back at square one.
What do you mean by "on a screen"? How does making a pattern on your back relate at all to what bionic eyes do?
Some bionic eyes use similar technology to cochlear implants to send impulses to the brain, and in fact the design was based on cochlear implants. Do you think hearing via cochlear implants is not 'real hearing" as well?
The person has to interpret the light and dark patterns. This is not seeing directly. It's still a huge advancement in helping people see something that resembles the real thing.
I notice that you're deliberately avoiding discussion of the newest models -- again. You know, the models that are so good that they allow their users to recognize and distinguish between different faces, and even read.
That's a far cry from just "interpretation of light and dark patterns," and is indeed "seeing directly."
And you keep trying to avoid the issue. Now why is that, I wonder?
So, for future reference, why don't you just enlighten us all and specify what resolution is sufficient for establishing "true sight"? Is it perhaps 720 × 576 (comparable to a standard-definition television), or perhaps 1920 x 1080 (comparable to a high-definition television).
Do let us know what that magic number is that distinguishes mere "interpretation of light and dark patterns" from "true sight." That'll make things a lot easier for everyone.
I would so love to nail down that particular goalpost ...
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
The problem I described has nothing to do with waiting for the Sun to be bright enough to be seen, for Lessans said the Sun is bright enough to be seen straight away at 12:00, and you face exactly the same problem anyway if the Sun is seen at 12:02. And the problem has nothing at all to do with traveling images. The problem is that you are putting light at the retina and saying it came from somewhere where you are unable to have it located at any previous time. Suppose the light is at the retina at 12:02. And suppose that there are no traveling images. Fine. Now tell me when was this light located at the Sun which you say it came from?
12:00. I don't understand what you're getting at Spacemonkey. Light travels, but the object that is seen is not time related.
Yay! A direct answer! Thank you.
But do you see the problem now? Firstly, you no longer have us seeing things in real time, but instead at a 2 minute delay. The Sun is ignited at 12:00, but you now say we will see it only two minutes later at 12:02. That is not real time vision.
Secondly, you have the same light at the Sun at 12:00 and then at the retina 93 million miles away two minutes later at 12:02. How did these particular photons get from the one place to the other? If they managed this without traveling through the intervening distance, then by definition they have just teleported there. And if they have gotten from the Sun to the retina by traveling, then you have this light traveling at 4 times the speed of light.
Do you agree that this is a problem? Or are you happy to have vision delayed by 2 minutes and light traveling 4 times faster than light?
How do you intend to fix this? Remember that any solution you offer must explain when light is first at the retina, where that specific light came from, when it was located at wherever it came from, and how it got from the one place to the other.
You're talking about time the minute you talk about traveling photons. As long as you come from this perspective you'll never grasp this concept because time implies distance which implies space/time travel. We're right back to the afferent position.
No, Peacegirl. YOU are talking about time when you say that photons from the Sun are at the retina at 12:02 and were at the Sun at 12:00. And YOU are talking about traveling photons as soon as you claim that these photons got from the Sun to the retina without teleporting.
If you want to concede that these things YOU have said were all wrong, then you are welcome to do so. But then you are back at square one and still need a new solution for explaining when the photons will be at the retina in Lessans' scenario, where they came from, and how they got there.
Every time that you try to explain this you succeed only in proving efferent vision to be completely impossible. Efferent vision cannot be considered plausible until you can address this problem. You can't ignore the reality of time and distance just because they cause you problems. Did the photons at the retina come from the Sun? If so, when were they at the Sun, and how did they get from the Sun to the retina?
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Of course not. Please don't take this to the absurd. What this does is makes you remember things beforehand so that you don't have to impose on anyone. Asking favors of others (things you can do for yourself) will be rarely requested which will make the other want to ask if there is anything they can do for you. You, in turn, would never take advantage of their generosity. It's amazing how you remember things when you don't have someone to pick up the slack. By remembering to do certain things for yourself, it lessens his load. He might be exhausted and even going to the store (which he would willingly do because he wants to show his love) may be burdensome. I know that when I'm tired the slightest request from anyone, which appears simple to them, is not simple to me. It's one more thing to do when all I want is to get home and jump in bed.
Let's say you didn't forget anything. Let's say the store is out of something you needed. Your spouse calls and the following conversation ensues
"Hello, darling, how is your day?"
"It's wonderful dear. I have done most of the shopping, and was just putting away things before I head out for the store again. Store X didn't have an item so I must go to store Y to secure it"
"Oh my dearest love, Store Y is right on my way home, allow me to pick the item up for you and save you a trip"
Can she accept his loving offer, or would that be taking advantage?
No, that's not taking advantage because the store is on his way home, and he is offering to help her. In fact, it makes him happy knowing that he can do this so that she doesn't have to run out. If she then said, "Would you mind also picking up my dry cleaning and stopping at the post office to get my mail, then, yes, I think that would be taking advantage.
Oh I get it. I was supposed to blatantly and obviously hint for him to offer with an advance guilt trip about how I was going to drive to yet another town to find that elusive milk. It's like the sex robes of grocery shopping.
Of course not. Please don't take this to the absurd.
People might be motivated to be a bit more polite to you if you responded in kind instead of trying to be insulting. You're on a discussion board, not giving a lecture which is a good thing because if you were a decent teacher this thread wouldn't be this long.
I'm being polite. When Vivisectus analyzed the right-of-way system, he actually took it to the absurd by saying that a man would choose to go play golf (just because he had the right-of-way) rather than desire to be at the hospital when his wife was in labor with his child. Now do you see why I said that?
Quote:
What this does is makes you remember things beforehand so that you don't have to impose on anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
The minute after I posted that I thought "damn, she's going to wiggle out by saying that it's rude to forget things since in the new world we're all either going to have to be perfect or be selfish". New scenario - a plumbing disaster has occurred in our tenant's cabin, neither he nor I know how to fix it but my husband will know how and is the one that will be doing the work. Is it OK to call him at work so that he can stop at the hardware store on his way home or should I go take a plumbing class that afternoon so that I can avoid imposing on him?
Isn't this his tenant also? Why would it be your responsibility, especially if you don't know how to fix it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
Should I just let the septic tank back up into the cabin and tell the tenant that he's being selfish by placing an obligation on us to fix it? He could probably have taken a plumbing class too and not ruined our day by telling us about it.
There are written contracts that let people know what is their responsibility and what is the landlord's. It seems to me that plumbing would be the landlord's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
There's also the option of not interrupting my husband and letting him drive all the way home and then back to town again for the parts. It's no one's fault that the plumbing broke - shit just gets old and plumbing is his job, not mine. There's also a pragmatic angle. We're a team in terms of paying for and taking care of a big old country place. It's not a particularly good use of our combined time and money for me to drive for an hour to get something that takes him 3 minutes and no extra gas when I could be stacking wood or clearing brush. How do I know which is the least selfish use of my time?
This has nothing to do with being selfish because this was an emergency at a tenant's cabin. There is nothing wrong with calling your husband and having him get the parts to fix the problem. The only time asking favors really comes into play is when you forget something because it's easy to forget when you know someone will be there to do what you should have done yourself.
p. 347 One of the great sources of resentment is when we try to save
ourselves physical effort by getting others, without paying them, to do
for us what we can do for ourselves. This happens all the time when
we ask people to do us favors which blames them in advance the
possibility of being disappointed, and when we are, we blame. Proof
that this is the case is the fact that we could never ask a favor if we
knew positively it would be refused. Consequently, when they fail to
do what we expect of them we justify criticizing or getting back in
some way by claiming they struck the first blow because they did not
do what we judged they should. In our present world if a husband
carelessly leaves the evening paper downstairs when he intended to
bring it with him he would simply yell to his wife, “I need you to bring
me the newspaper.” He could have gotten the newspaper himself
before going upstairs, but he moved in the direction of least resistance
which was natural under the circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
I sure hope that this new world comes with detailed operating instructions. I'm already exhausted from thinking about it.
Because you're making more out of this than needs be. In most cases the husband wouldn't mind picking up milk on the way home. But if he said, I'm sorry I'm just too tired to stop, he would have the right-of-way and because you know he has the right-of-way, you would lose the justification to blame him or get angry.
Quote:
I know that when I'm tired the slightest request from anyone, which appears simple to them, is not simple to me. It's one more thing to do when all I want is to get home and jump in bed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
That sure doesn't sound very loving to me - in fact it sounds downright selfish. Didn't your family ever do anything for each other that they didn't feel like doing? Did you make your kids clean their rooms even though they had to go to school?
Of course, and for the most part we constantly do things for each other. I'm talking about advance blame which means that if someone doesn't do what you judge he should, he gets blamed, which is wrong. I'm sure that if you really needed something, his standing offer would compel him to say, of course, no problem. But if he said I'm not feeling well, or for whatever reason, you would not want him to do this errand. You would be concerned and say, Are you okay? Don't worry about it, I'll get it tomorrow.
Quote:
And it's so nice that your husband copes with your mom. How endearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
It gets worse if he ignores her. It's endearing to me that he's developed that practical survival skill.
Oh I get it. I was supposed to blatantly and obviously hint for him to offer with an advance guilt trip about how I was going to drive to yet another town to find that elusive milk. It's like the sex robes of grocery shopping.
There is no hinting with sex robes. You can say what you want verbally, just like you can say that you need milk. But favors will be reduced to a minimum because the things we can do for ourselves we will do for ourselves, and those times that some item slipped our mind, and the store was on the way home, the husband would be happy to help out. He may never say no, but on the rare occasion that he did, she wouldn't even question it. Why would he mind doing something for her when she is always thinking of him and doing things that she knows he would enjoy, without any obligation to do so? You're not getting the whole picture.
So ... how 'bout those bionic eyes which are now good enough to allow their users to recognize and distinguish between different faces, and read?
You know -- the very things you said would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision?
Wait, let me guess: "Something else must be going on," and they're not really seeing; they just think they are, right?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are interpreting the patterns on a screen, just like when someone makes a pattern on your back with his finger. That is not real vision, I'm sorry. Until it's proven that they can actually see the object, not interpret the pattern which is a representation of the real thing, we're back at square one.
What do you mean by "on a screen"? How does making a pattern on your back relate at all to what bionic eyes do?
Some bionic eyes use similar technology to cochlear implants to send impulses to the brain, and in fact the design was based on cochlear implants. Do you think hearing via cochlear implants is not 'real hearing" as well?
The person has to interpret the light and dark patterns. This is not seeing directly. It's still a huge advancement in helping people see something that resembles the real thing.
I notice that you're deliberately avoiding discussion of the newest models -- again. You know, the models that are so good that they allow their users to recognize and distinguish between different faces, and even read.
I didn't see where they said that. What can they read? Again, interpreting patterns is not true reading. If someone draws a T on my back, I would interpret it as a T, but I am not really reading it myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
That's a far cry from just "interpretation of light and dark patterns," and is indeed "seeing directly."
And you keep trying to avoid the issue. Now why is that, I wonder?
So, for future reference, why don't you just enlighten us all and specify what resolution is sufficient for establishing "true sight"? Is it perhaps 720 × 576 (comparable to a standard-definition television), or perhaps 1920 x 1080 (comparable to a high-definition television).
Do let us know what that magic number is that distinguishes mere "interpretation of light and dark patterns" from "true sight." That'll make things a lot easier for everyone.
I would so love to nail down that particular goalpost ...
I don't see where people can read or see individual faces in the latest Argus II. I don't know how many electrodes would be necessary for someone to be able to see normally, or if it's even possible. They're not quite there yet in their development.
The first version of the system had 16 electrodes on the implant and is still in clinical trials at the University of California in Los Angeles. Doctors implanted the retinal chip in six subjects, all of whom regained some degree of sight. They are now able to perceive shapes (such as the shaded outline of a tree) and detect movement to varying degrees. The newest version of the system should offer greater image resolution because it has far more electrodes.
Oh I get it. It's like the sex robes of grocery shopping.
There is no hinting with sex robes. But favors will be reduced to a minimum because the things we can do for ourselves we will do for ourselves, You're not getting the whole picture.
So the "Golden Age" will be one big 'do it yourself' party because no-one will want to impose on another person. Doesn't that contradict Lessans saying that 'do it yourself sex' will not happen?
So ... how 'bout those bionic eyes which are now good enough to allow their users to recognize and distinguish between different faces, and read?
You know -- the very things you said would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision?
Wait, let me guess: "Something else must be going on," and they're not really seeing; they just think they are, right?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are interpreting the patterns on a screen, just like when someone makes a pattern on your back with his finger. That is not real vision, I'm sorry. Until it's proven that they can actually see the object, not interpret the pattern which is a representation of the real thing, we're back at square one.
What do you mean by "on a screen"? How does making a pattern on your back relate at all to what bionic eyes do?
Some bionic eyes use similar technology to cochlear implants to send impulses to the brain, and in fact the design was based on cochlear implants. Do you think hearing via cochlear implants is not 'real hearing" as well?
The person has to interpret the light and dark patterns. This is not seeing directly. It's still a huge advancement in helping people see something that resembles the real thing.
I notice that you're deliberately avoiding discussion of the newest models -- again. You know, the models that are so good that they allow their users to recognize and distinguish between different faces, and even read.
I didn't see where they said that. What can they read? Again, interpreting patterns is not true reading. If someone draws a T on my back, I would interpret it as a T, but I am not really reading it myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
That's a far cry from just "interpretation of light and dark patterns," and is indeed "seeing directly."
And you keep trying to avoid the issue. Now why is that, I wonder?
So, for future reference, why don't you just enlighten us all and specify what resolution is sufficient for establishing "true sight"? Is it perhaps 720 × 576 (comparable to a standard-definition television), or perhaps 1920 x 1080 (comparable to a high-definition television).
Do let us know what that magic number is that distinguishes mere "interpretation of light and dark patterns" from "true sight." That'll make things a lot easier for everyone.
I would so love to nail down that particular goalpost ...
I don't see where people can read or see individual faces in the latest Argus II. I don't know how many electrodes would be necessary for someone to be able to see normally, or if it's even possible. They're not quite there yet in their development.
[I]The first version of the system had 16 electrodes on the implant and is still in clinical trials at the University of California in Los Angeles. Doctors implanted the retinal chip in six subjects, all of whom regained some degree of sight. They are now able to perceive shapes (such as the shaded outline of a tree) and detect movement to varying degrees. The newest version of the system should offer greater image resolution because it has far more electrodes.
That How Stuff Works article is 6 years old. Try looking up the very latest information next time
Researchers in Germany have unveiled the Alpha IMS retinal prosthesis; a device that completely redefines the state of the art of implanted, bionic devices. The first round of clinical trials were a huge success, with eight out of nine patients reporting that they can now detect mouth shapes (smiles, frowns), small objects such as telephones and cutlery, signs on doors, and — most importantly — whether a glass of wine is red or white.
The Alpha IMS, developed by the University of Tübingen in Germany, is exciting for two reasons. First, it is connected to your brain via 1,500 electrodes, providing unparalleled visual acuity and resolution (the recently-approved-in-the-US Argus II retinal prosthesis has just 60 electrodes). Second, Alpha IMS is completely self-contained: Where the Argus II relies on an external camera to relay data to the implant embedded in your retina, the Alpha IMS prosthesis has a built-in sensor that directly gathers its imagery from the light that passes into your eye. This has the knock-on effect that the Argus II requires you to turn your head if you wish to look from side to side, while the Alpha IMS allows you to swivel your eyeballs normally. In essence, Alpha IMS is the first true, self-contained bionic eye.
I didn't see where they said that. What can they read? Again, interpreting patterns is not true reading. If someone draws a T on my back, I would interpret it as a T, but I am not really reading it myself.
Why do you keep quoting from a 6 year-old article? The Argus II is relatively ancient; the Alpha IMS has far better resolution and capabilities.
And since I gave you links -- including a link to the technical paper describing exactly how it works -- you can't pretend you didn't know this.
It looks a whole lot like you're trying to move the goalposts, and trying to ignore inconvenient information.
And speaking of moving goalposts, when are you going to get around to telling us exactly what resolution counts as "True Vision," as opposed to mere "interpretation of light and dark patterns"? It'd be really helpful to know exactly where the goalposts are located!
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
