A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You keep saying this, and this is the impossible part. Without an explanation- that doesn't violate physics- for how light gets to be located at the retina, it will remain impossible. Not just implausible....flat out can't happen.

Light can't just be somewhere because you need it to be there.

Again, you are thinking in terms of afferent vision, which would make this model totally implausible. But if Lessans is right, everything makes sense. Light does not have to reach Earth in order to see the object, but you are not looking at it from the efferent position so, of course, it makes no sense to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are aware that visual signals can be measured in the brain, right? Have you ever heard of an EEG? How about a VEP (Visual Evoked Potential) test?

VEP test saved this baby's life, because she failed it but was too little to say she couldn't see out of that eye.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Rx-n2CkGo1g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I never said there wasn't a connection. The optic nerve is necessary for there to be a connection between the external and internal (irregardless of which way the brain sees), therefore this video does not rule efferent vision out.

What does the VEP detect?

The VEP measures the time that it takes for a visual stimulus to travel from the eye to the occipital cortex. It can give the doctor an idea of whether the nerve pathways are abnormal in any way. For example, in multiple sclerosis, the insulating layer around nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord (known as the myelin sheath) can be affected. This means that it takes a longer time for electrical signals to be conducted from the eyes, resulting in an abnormal VEP. A normal VEP can be fairly sensitive in excluding a lesion of the optic nerve, along its pathways in the anterior part of the brain.

http://www.virtualmedicalcentre.com/...tential-vep/52

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To you it's meaningless; that doesn't mean it is. Observed reality can be deceitful. The only way to know what's going on is indirectly.

It's meaningless to everyone, you included. You have no idea what you are writing. You throw up posts into the forums like someone throwing spaghetti against a wall and hoping some of it sticks. None of it ever does.

Light and an object are NOT one. They are different. This is observed to be true. In the Hubble telescope we see light from objects as the objects were billions of years in the past, because it took the light, which is separate from those objects, billions of years to reach our telescopes.

The idea that we see "the object itself" is wrong and ludicrous, not even a remotely coherent idea. You've wasted your whole life on utter nonsense.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think I have an idea what the problem is, and that is that Peacegirl's world is black and white. Either you believe in daddy's book and accept it without question, or you are a bad person, mean and ignorant, without any understanding of the truth. To Peacegirl there are only 2 kinds of people in the world, those who accept the book (her), and those who don't (everyone else), and in her mind she's right and everyone else in the world is wrong.

Seeing the world in such stark contrast really isn't unique to peacegirl. There are always people who divide the population into true believers and heretics.

She is only interesting because the "in" group is currently one person, and the beliefs are so nutty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, the implant is a light sensor that sends signals to the brain.

Since that is exactly what the implant does, because it was designed to do so, then what are you talking about? It sends electric signals to the brain via the optic nerve. That's how it works.

Again, what do you mean by "on a screen"? You keep saying this, but there is no screen. WTF are you talking about?

The optic nerve is stimulated and sending electrical signals to the brain, but we cannot know whether that electrical stimulation carries the signal that can then be interpreted as a letter, or whether the brain is stimulated to see directly. The screen means that which is seen when something is placed in front of the eyes. Just like in real time vision, the screen of the outside world is anything that is within one's field of view.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Lady Shea has correctly pointed out that peacegirl's "model" is different from Lessans' "model."

Lessans did NOT say that photons had to be at the retina in order for us to see. He explicitly stated otherwise in his "god turns on the sun at noon" example.

Ayup. According to Lessans, we'll see any object that's (1) big enough and (2) sufficiently luminous or illuminated. He quite clearly believed that light making contact with the eye isn't necessary for sight, even though the eye is basically a light collector. The turning-on-the-sun hypothetical makes that abundantly clear. It's a breathtakingly ill-informed stance from an anatomical point of view, but it's kinda charming in a loldumbass sort of way. The part about photons hanging around to smile on us in the morning is an example.

peacegirl seems to realize on a kind of gibbonesque level that Lessans' ideas regarding vision are wholly untenable. Thus, she flails clownishly and tosses around buzzwords like "optics," "mirror image," "inverse square," etc. -- ideas she can never hope to understand -- in a marvelously inept attempt to rescue "efferent vision" from the dumpster in which it was birthed.

I have little doubt that if Lessans were still with us, and was confronted with the same evidence peacegirl's been shown over the past decade plus, he would have readily admitted he was wrong about vision. However, Lessans is long gone, spirited by the 100% nonreligious God back to the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness from whence he came. Thus, we can't show him how wrong he was about the anatomy of the eye, the properties of light, etc., and the admission will never occur. peacegirl will continue flailing because nothing short of an admission of inaccuracy from Lessans himself could dissuade her.

Awhile back peacegirl told me Lessans would have freely admitted that the idiotic lawsuit he filed against President Carter was frivolous. However, peacegirl can't quite bring herself to acknowledge that fact. That speaks volumes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, the implant is a light sensor that sends signals to the brain.

It's true that the optic nerve is stimulated by light, but that doesn't prove that the signals going to the cortex are interpreted as real sight. When that person looks at the letters, why is it that his brain has to be interpreting the light instead of seeing the letters directly? How can you prove this?

I explained what the screen is. The screen is anything that is in front of our eyes upon which objects can be seen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Right here it says this:

The implants capture light and in turn stimulate the optic nerve, which delivers visual signal data to the brain.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, it does the job of the photoreceptors in the retina...captures light then delivers the signal. Where is the screen you think exists?

To repeat: The screen is our particular field of view upon which objects in the external world are seen. In this circumstance, the screen was the table upon which the letters VOLT were placed.

My question is if the optic nerve is intact, how do they know these signals from the newly created retina are being transduced into signals that are being interpreted inside the brain.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because that's what it is designed to do...transduce signals and send them to the brain, and we know it is working as designed because the test patients can see something.

Of course they can see something because the retina is working due to correcting the damaged part. Light has stimulated the optic nerve, but the transduction of light to signals that can be interpreted is still in question.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you think they designed it to work this way, to do this exact thing that it does, but it accidentally successfully works some completely different way (which is what you seem to think has happened to cameras)?

They made a prosthetic. They helped the eye do what it does naturally. Each area of the brain had to be stimulated in order for the brain to wake up, so to speak, and see the objects placed in front of it. But to say they proved that the brain itself was interpreting signals is not conclusive by any means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't the brain be doing what the brain does when the retina is working?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is doing exactly what it does when the retina is working. The implant does the job that the damaged or non-functional retina isn't doing....receives the light and tranduces it into signals to the brain.

The optic nerve gets stimulated, that is true, but to say that this light is being transduced into specific signals that can be interpreted as sight is still inconclusive. How do you know he's not seeing the letters directly after the brain has been stimulated?

It's a replacement part basically, which could still create limited vision, but this does not prove what the brain is actually doing. Sorry, I don't think this proves what you think it proves.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you are a liar, because it does exactly what you said you would accept as solid evidence for the standard model of vision.

No, I'm not lying. I have said all along that the incoming signals would have to bypass the retina altogether to know absolutely whether it's the signal, not the retina that is allowing the brain to see.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's a way to maintain your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence against your claims. With religious people we call that

Lying for Jesus. With you we'll call it Lying for Lessans.[/quote]

Nope, it's not faith, but you're certainly trying your very best to make it appear that way. I actually feel bad because you're so intent on showing Lessans up which you're failing to do.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, you are thinking in terms of afferent vision, which would make this model totally implausible. But if Lessans is right, everything makes sense. Light does not have to reach Earth in order to see the object, but you are not looking at it from the efferent position so, of course, it makes no sense to you.

Sure: if efferent sight is correct, then it is correct. The problem is that a number of impossible things need to be possible for this to be the case.

[Vivisectus]

If you can see the object, the light is already at the retina. That's what you're missing. There is no waiting for the light to reach your eyes, for this would be a delay. In the afferent account, you're waiting for light to travel through space/time and strike the eye, which will allow you to see whatever the light is bringing. In the case of efferent vision, it's the exact opposite. You're not waiting for anything because the image is not in the light. You're seeing the real thing due to light's presence. Just remember that if you can see the object, your eyes are already in optical range which is why there's no waiting time.

Oh happy days are here again! I love it when you go all crackpotty like this. In fact, I will join you.

If wings are just a condition for flight, then whenever a bird flies, then the lift has already been generated, without requiring wings at all. There is no requirement for wings to generate lift, for this would mean that the aerodynamic properties of birds and their wings is what makes them fly. In the aerodynamic account, you require the aerodynamic properties of the birds body and wings to generate lift, which will allow the bird to leave the ground. In the case of our new idea, it's the exact opposite. You do not need wings to generate lift, because it is not the aerodynamic qualities of wings that generate the lift. Flight is enabled due to the presence of wings. Just remember that whenever flight occurs, lift is already been generated which is why there is no need for wings to cause the flight.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But his desire is not imposing on her. Does it require her to do anything? No. But for her to satisfy her desire, he has to give up his. Therefore, she is the one that must yield. Geeeeze, why is this so difficult? This is the problem in a nutshell; people are trying to find flaws that aren't there.

...but then we run straight into some problems:

1: My childrens desire to eat meals and sleep in a house requires me to do something. My desire to smoke crack cocaine does not require them to do anything. So my desire to smoke crack cocaine gets right of way over their desire to eat meals and sleep in a house.

2: My wife's desire to have me attend the birth of our child requires me to do something, and give up my desire to go fishing. So my desire to go fishing gets right of way over her desire to attend the birth.

So far your only answer to this is the statement that there would be special circumstances, in which this would simply never come up. But that just means that special circumstances are needed to make this system useful: at heart, it is a means for avoiding injustice that would only work in a world where there is no injustice for it to avoid.

[ChristinaM]

Does anyone have the link to the book handy so that I don't have to go search the thread for it? I'm getting bored with going in circles and I want to skip to the next chapter to see what there is to make fun of precious nuggets of wisdom are to be found there.

[thedoc]

ChristinaM, did you ever get a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking? The nuggets you are looking for are more like rocks, at least with coal you can burn it to keep warm. Lessans book would be an expensive fire starter, but at least then it would be of some value.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Not really since my name isn't Vivisectus. You seem to be advance blaming me for what someone else said.

I'm not blaming you. I'm just trying to prevent you from doing what he did. I don't know you that well to know if you are seriously interested in this discussion, or if you're just here for the lulz.

Because you're making more out of this than needs be.

Originally Posted by ChritinaM

I'm making more out of this than it needs to be? FFS who needs a 500 page manual to figure out who should get the milk? That book can be summed up as "just do what I want, don't complain and while you're at it bring me the paper". It's the longest justification for selfishness in the world. This might come as a shock to you but most married people want the comfort of sleeping together more than they want to stretch out and if stretching out was very important to them they would get a larger bed. Somehow you've convinced yourself that as long as the person that wants the least amount of intimacy is satisfied, life is good.

A big bed would be great. It would be like two beds put together, so it would serve the same purpose. If both people want to sleep together, more power to them. You seem to be missing the point of this discussion.

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.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

First of all, I have a sense of perspective about what I get upset about and a lack of milk isn't on the list. If Lessans could have just learned not to be so selfish you wouldn't need the bible of relationship advice.

I think that you missed the part where I asked you if you made your kids clean their rooms or do any chores after school given how exhausted they must be.

They would have the right-of-way to clean or not to clean their room. You have no idea how different children are going to be raised, and they will be happier and more adjusted than the kids we see in today's world. These principles do work whether you see it or not, but you've already jumped on the anti-Lessans bandwagon. Nobody would dare agree with anything Lessans has to say because that breaks the unwritten rule.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

For several years I was picking my one grandson up at school and bringing him back to the house. the general rule was that he came home and did his homework to get it out of the way for the rest of the evening, and the justification was that he was still in the 'school mode' and coul just keep going. However there were times when he sat down and just couldn't seem to focus on what he was doing and I figuted he was just too tired, so I would tell him to put it away till later and go rest or do something else. People are too complex for a "One Size Fits All" rule book and this is why Lessans right-of-way system will not work.

Where does the right-of-way not work in your example doc? You bring things up that aren't related and then say there's not one size fits all. You don't know what you're talking about as usual. I would be shocked if you ever say anything that shows you understand what this book is about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The examples Lessans used are so specific and odd that they could only be personal. I think that whole section was just his fantasy life. It seemse wanted a wife that cooked his favorite meals and had sex with him and otherwise left him the hell alone and assumed the whole world wants those same kind of marriages.

You, too, missed the whole point of this discussion. Amazing! What kind of marriage are you talking about that you don't want? This knowledge gives people the respect they deserve, which is often undermined in today's marriages. I'm happy for you if you have a great marriage. Then you don't need these principles, but many people might benefit from them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The passage where he explained that asking your partner "where are you going?" is undeserving of any response at all because it's none of your damn business was very telling of this mindset in my opinion.

It's just that this kind of question is unnecessary. It is a question that in this world would expect a response, and then judge whether that response was justified. In the new world people will not find it necessary to ask these sorts of questions because there's no way they will be hurt by the actions of their partner. So why would she need to question what he is getting up for?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Makes you wonder what their marriage was like, and what she thought of his discoveries.

My mother loved my father very much. They had their typical problems that married people in this world have. She supported my father in his work although she didn't discuss the book with him like I did. She was too busy taking care of the kids.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, the latest transparent dodge and goalpost-shifting is that since some bionic eyes work by implanting an "artificial retina" that transduces incoming light and then stimulates the optic nerve, this doesn't count as "Real Sight."

Note that these devices do not -- and cannot -- receive impulses from the brain; they can only generate impulses and transmit them to the optic nerve.

At least, that's how they were designed and built. Apparently, we're to believe that the people who designed and built the devices don't know how they work.

Incidentally, when I gave you the links to the reports -- including the technical report describing exactly how the device functions -- I predicted that you would never read them, given how the device does exactly what you said would conclusively disprove Lessans' claims regarding how we see.

Looks like that was a pretty good prediction.



But guess what? Not all bionic eyes work that way. Some have the photoreceptors in special glasses that the user wears, and beam signals to an implant that stimulates the optic nerve -- completely bypassing the retina. You know, what you said would actually disprove Lessans' claims regarding how we see, after the latest shifting of the goalposts.


And researchers are currently working on models that will bypass the optic nerve entirely and directly stimulate the visual cortex of the brain, thus restoring vision to patients whose optic nerves have deteriorated. We already know that you can get people (and cats) to see images through direct stimulation of the visual cortex, because we've been doing that since the 1950s.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

How many times have I stated that distance is not a factor in this account. Size and brightness are. You won't let go of your traveling light, which you believe is what brings the image through space/time to the eye or film. You won't let go of this concept, even for a second, which is why you believe this model is impossible. It's no use talking about this anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also LOL at the personal attacks on me, peacegirl. You are blaming my ego for your saying stupid things? That is deflection...another of your favorite weasels.

Your bedside manner is hard to take. You confront me as if you know, and you really don't know. That is arrogance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I've been wondering what Peacegirl's marrage was like and what her Ex thought about the book and the discoveries. If they were practicing the advice in the book, it doesn't demonstrate that advice as valid. But I'm sure these thoughts will be seen as some kind of attack on Peacegirl.

He knew nothing about the book. If he did, we probably would still have been married.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I keep trying to come up with examples of things that won't touch on her personal life because in general I'd prefer to stay away from things like that but seeing as she and Lessans are the only two people that have ever agreed with this stuff it's pretty hard not to keep bringing it back to how they practiced what they preach.

How could we have practiced what he preached when the application of these principles involve the entire world, not just the two of us. We could practice some of the principles, but not all. For example, in the new world no one will fear falling below his standard of living, which in today's world causes serious stress, and can be the downfall of a marriage.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, you are thinking in terms of afferent vision, which would make this model totally implausible. But if Lessans is right, everything makes sense. Light does not have to reach Earth in order to see the object, but you are not looking at it from the efferent position so, of course, it makes no sense to you.

We are not talking about whether light has to reach Earth to merely see the Sun, we are talking about your claim that light is located at the retina when we see the Sun.

You are moving the goalposts. Seeing something is Lessans claim. Light being located at the retina is your claim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Lady Shea has correctly pointed out that peacegirl's "model" is different from Lessans' "model."

Lessans did NOT say that photons had to be at the retina in order for us to see. He explicitly stated otherwise in his "god turns on the sun at noon" example.

Not true. You are the one that is trying to make it seem that way so you can keep laughing. But he'll have the last laugh.

Originally Posted by Davidm

According to Seymour the Simple, since light is a condition of sight but not a cause of it, then if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see the sun instantly on earth, not because the photons from the sun are magically "at the retina," but only because they are at the sun.

If the Sun is bright enough, then the photons would already be at the eye. It's not magic.

Originally Posted by davidm

This is why, he says, we would still have to wait for the photons to make the trip to the earth, eight and a half minutes long, before we could see our neighbor standing next to us. It's because, he says, it takes the photons eight and a half minutes to reach the earth, ergo they cannot be at the retina at the same time the sun is turned on! He SAYS this.

You are mixing the two concepts up just like you did with lasers and the moon.

Originally Posted by davidm

What he claims is that anywhere the light IS, we will see it, instantly. Since it's AT the sun in his scenario, we see it at once.

No, he said if we see the object and it meets the conditions, we will see it instantly because we're already within optical range.

Originally Posted by davidm

Seymour the Simple charmingly seems to have felt that looking at photons was rather like looking at runners lining up at a distant starting line. We see them from a distance, because they are there. Then, after the gun sounds, it may take the runners eight and a half minutes to arrive where we are standing, and until they arrive, we won't see them running past us. Seymour seems to have believed that light works like this.

No, that's not what he believed. You're making shit up.

Originally Posted by davidm

That's how charmingly dense he was. Of course, we know the reason why we see the runners at the starting line from a distance. It's because light is reflected off of them, and impinges upon our eyes. That's how we see everything!

No, that's not how we see everything. The light would never give us an image if the runner wasn't there to begin with.

Originally Posted by davidm

But what is the explanation for seeing light at the sun at noon from the vantage point of the earth, when God turns the sun on? His "explanation" is that we see the light at the sun via the brain "looking out through the windows of our eyes." That this explains exactly NOTHING, Lessans did not seem to notice or care about. It's like peacegirl's "Voila! We see."

That's true, Voila we see, if the conditions are met because there's no delay.

Originally Posted by davidm

But the main point is that Lessans did NOT say that the light has to be at the retina to see. It only has to be at the sun!

That's true. If it's large enough and bright enough to be seen, the Sun is already in our field of view because the photons are already at the retina. I know you can't believe this.

Originally Posted by davidm

Lessans' account is incoherent, naturally, but if it is possible for claims to have degrees of incoherency, I would say it's LESS incoherent than peacegirl's "model." Peacegirl is reduced to saying that the light is at the retina, even though it has not reached the retina!

It's already at the retina the instant we open our eyes and see the Sun because it's already in our visual range. Therefore, we don't have to wait for light to reach our eyes, which this model does not require since the light is already there.

Originally Posted by davidm

She even said that she knows it is hard to understand this claim! Of course it is hard, peacegirl: It is in violation of the Law of Noncontradiction, first mooted some 2,000 years ago! Your claim is not just physically impossible; it is logically impossible.

No it is not. You're just in denial.

Originally Posted by davidm

So peacegirl's model contradicts that of Lessans. I don't know when she drifted away from her God's model, or whether she realizes how blasphemous this makes her. Remember, she said Lessans's book was her "bible."

He didn't have to say light is at the retina for me to know that that's what he meant. It's implied if you understood the model, which you don't.

Originally Posted by davidm

I imagine she drifted away from it, and concocted this "light is at the retina even though it hasn't reached the retina yet" nonsense when she realized she could not defends Lessans' model, which itself is just wrong as well as incoherent, though not quite as incoherent as peacegirl's "model."

What I still fail to understand is why people keep pressing peacegirl to explain her "model" (which is at variance with Lessans' "model"). All that needs to be pointed out, again and again, is that both these incoherent and unexplainable "models" are at observed variance with reality. If some model is at observed variance with reality with no hope of repair, it is simply useless even to discuss it. That is why I keep pointing out reality to her, like bouncing lasers off the moon -- which, note, she is now completely ignoring, because she is a

No, I'm not a weasel. This laser test proves nothing. The only thing it proves is the time it takes for light to make a round trip to the moon and back, but it doesn't prove that we see see the world in delayed time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We are not talking about whether light has to reach Earth to merely see the Sun, we are talking about your claim that light is located at the retina when we see the Sun.

You are moving the goalposts. Seeing something is Lessans claim. Light being located at the retina is your claim.

Both are accurate. We see something because that something is within optical range. It's within optical range because it's large enough and bright enough to be seen which puts the light at the retina. Boy do I sound like a broken record. We aren't waiting for light to arrive. Nothing is in the light that would allow us to interpret an image, IF THE OBJECT ISN'T PRESENT.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Observed reality can be deceitful. The only way to know what's going on is indirectly.

I hope you are happy in your marriage. That's all that matters.

Very happy, getting ready to celebrate 22 years next month.