A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

How is light "put at the retina"?

[Stephen Maturin]

That's an interesting question! Other interesting questions include, "Does 'at the retina' mean 'in actual physical contact with the retina'?" and, "Is the light at the retina the same light that's illuminating the object?" I'd ask her the questions myself, but the odds of receiving an answer that doesn't involve space magic or Lessantonian gibberish are vanishingly small.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

So now observations are not reliable and one has to consider them and infer what one thinks they mean. So Lessans 'astute observations' were worthless and he just made shit up out of his ass?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Did Lessans 'observe' light molecules at the retina or did he infer them from the afore mentioned 'astute observations'?

[LadyShea]

You won't let go of your traveling light

Because light travels. If light exists in the efferent model, it must be accounted for at every moment.

[sadie]

Oh my! This thread is still continuing? Doc, let me know when the next party rolls around, ok? You know how to reach me on Project Reason. Peacegirl was tossed off there for a misdemeanor of some kind...can't remember why. Maybe because she was deleting her posts so the thread made even less sense than when she was posting. (although a few insisted the deletions were an improvement over her argument)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Distance becomes a factor when you state that the light at the retina came from the distant Sun, because you then have to explain how it got from the Sun to the retina. And if the light came from the Sun then it does have to get from the Sun to the retina. It doesn't necessarily have to travel, but if it doesn't then you need to provide an alternative. So far all you're doing is weaseling and evading by refusing to address the parts of your account that are impossible and make no sense.

You said the light from the newly ignited Sun would be at the retina at 12:02 and was located at the Sun at 12:00. Was this correct or incorrect?

If correct, then you need to explain this 2min delay and light traveling at 4 times the speed of light.

If incorrect, then you need to explain when the light will be at the retina, where it came from, and how it got from there to the retina.

If you can't do this, then efferent vision is obviously not plausible. You can't say light will be somewhere if you can't explain where it came from or how it got there. Will you ever address this problem, or will you just continue to weasel?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You won't let go of your traveling light,

Light IS electromagnetic radiation, visible light IS photons that travel at the speed of light. That is the definition of light that has been astutly observed and verified by test and experiment. There is no other definition of light that fits reality. Lessans molecuels of light that wait to greet us in the morning are pure fantasy made up out of his imagination. Light IS photons that have been emited from a source or reflected from and object and are independent of both. There is no connection between a traveling photon and an object.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by sadie

Oh my! This thread is still continuing? Doc, let me know when the next party rolls around, ok? You know how to reach me on Project Reason. Peacegirl was tossed off there for a misdemeanor of some kind...can't remember why. Maybe because she was deleting her posts so the thread made even less sense than when she was posting. (although a few insisted the deletions were an improvement over her argument)

Well that might not last too long, I'm on a downward spiral of disaproval over at PR, I'm not sure how long they will tolerate me there.
Sorry you missed the last party, but you can go back to the bottom of page 1100 and see it, such as it was. PM me your user I.D. over there because I was never quite sure who was who, mostly I was guessing, with a few exceptions.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because light travels. If light exists in the efferent model, it must be accounted for at every moment.

Yeah, it's horrible that we insist that models conform to observed reality.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The retina is not involved, but the technology is in place of the retina. It still serves the same function. I am saying that unless we can prove that only impulses allow the brain to see the image, there is no proof that the brain interprets images from signals.

The brain receives signals from the implant, as that is what it is designed to do. We know it works because patients can see something.

I repeat, 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)?

And I'm asking you to please stop patronizing me LadyShea.

LOL, you throw a histrionic shitfit, insulting me, yet I am the bad guy doing the patronizing? And then you go right into insults again.

You are not all that. You really don't know the truth, but you think you do. It's disturbing to me because you have a confrontational style that tells me you think you know more than you do. That is called arrogance.

LOL, I am confrontational when faced with a constant barrage of bullshit weaseling, yes. I have stated flat out that this was the case with me. And this has not changed since day one. Are you still "disturbed" after 2 years? What exactly is disturbing?

I give my opinions and back them up with the evidence I have gathered. You are free to refute it with superior evidence or argumentation, or just waffle and mealy mouth around as usual. Or, as you are doing now, ad hom and tone argument me to death.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Maturin

That's an interesting question! Other interesting questions include, "Does 'at the retina' mean 'in actual physical contact with the retina'?" and, "Is the light at the retina the same light that's illuminating the object?" I'd ask her the questions myself, but the odds of receiving an answer that doesn't involve space magic or Lessantonian gibberish are vanishingly small.

Light has to be at the retina instantaneously in order for light to also be in physical contact with camera film instantaneously. That's what started this whole "light is there, already somehow" thing...because light had to be there for cameras to work in real time. She managed to grok that right quick, because if the eyes and cameras don't work the exact same way then we prove Lessans wrong every time we snap a photo.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can see the object, the light is already at the retina.

No one is disputing this. The question is, how did the light get to the retina?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your posts are filled with sarcasm. You haven't asked a serious question in ages.

It is true that I can be sarcastic. It is not true that I have not asked any serious questions.

I asked you how you know that dogs don't have language. You didn't answer.

I asked you why you posted your OP in the philosophy forum instead of the science forum, if Lessans book is meant to be scientific. You didn't answer.

I asked you about shinning a laser pointer at the wall, whether the resulting red spot was an object or light. You didn't answer

After you introduced the whole cuddling scenario I asked you about the right of way principle and how well that worked out for you in your marriage. You didn't answer.

Those are just a few of the serious questions that I asked you and to which you did not respond.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am saying that if we see the object, the light is the condition only. It is the opposite side of the imaginary coin. It provides the conduit that allows us to see the object, but it doesn't bring anything through space/time.

Definition of conduit
noun
1a channel for conveying water or other fluid:
a conduit for conveying water to the power plant•a person or organization that acts as a channel for the transmission of something:
the office acts as a conduit for ideas to flow throughout the organization
2a tube or trough for protecting electric wiring:
the gas pipe should not be close to any electrical conduit

If light provides a conduit, what is being conveyed through that conduit?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Are you saying that indirect observations are inherently more reliable than direct observations?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

What puts the light at the retina and how does it do that?

See there, I just asked you a bunch of serious questions. Are you going to try to answer any of them?

[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.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

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.

There is nothing wrong with using metaphors Maturin. As far as light being at the eye, the only reason you say it was ill-informed is because you are lacking in understanding.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

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.

Your little speech is so eloquent yet so misguided.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

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.

You're right, nothing can dissuade me because nothing has proven him wrong. You act like afferent vision is a fact and his claim is without any substance. That is absolutely not true. Just because he observed reality and came to a different conclusion than what has been accepted as fact, doesn't make him someone to laugh at. That just shows your ignorance.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

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.

He filed the suit for a reason. If you understood his justification, you would be more sympathetic but it seems to go in one ear and out the other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

In all fairness, you can't draw up an analogy like this because the two are not alike. You can try just like you did with firemen are not responsible for fires as blame isn't responsible for crime, but your analysis is flawed. Where in the world did he say we don't need wings to fly (light to see?) The truth is light is a condition; you cannot compare the aerodynamic qualities of wings which do generate lift, and light, which does not cause sight because there is nothing in the light to cause it. Good try, but YOU FLUNKED!

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...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.

Yes, it does, and you can do it or not do it. But you wouldn't not want to do it, which you're failing to grasp because you want to make this simple principle into something that is anything but what it actually does to preserve a healthy relationship. You want Lessans to be wrong in the worst way which is clouding your thinking.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

It does if that's what you want, but you are hurting them if you do this, and you know it. They wouldn't blame you if you did, but you won't get any satisfaction becoming incapable of taking care of your family when this is a responsibility that you took on when you took a wife and had a family.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

Sure it requires you to do something. Ultimately you have the right-of-way, but why would you not want to show your love to your wife and family in a situation like this? Going fishing would be the least desirable choice under the circumstances because seeing your infant born would give you great joy. Your reasoning has become absurd, which is why you are failing to see the total picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

Having a baby is a special circumstance, do you not agree? If a special circumstance came up such as a birth of a baby, there would be nothing to keep a husband away from seeing his baby born. Not only would he want this for himself; he would want to show his love to his wife who needs him at that moment. Wild horses couldn't keep him away. You deserve two duh's for that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

Christina, if you want the book (which contains Chapter Ten: Our Posterity and is the newer version), I can sell it to you at a discount for $24.95. That's pretty good for a 600 page book. Online it will cost you $39.00. I don't mean to talk about money, but I really do want you to understand this book if you are sincerely interested.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

When did I ever say there wasn't a connection between the retina, the optic nerve, and the brain? There has to be recognition that light is present. That's what the optic nerve is doing, but to say that these impulses that are carried to the brain from the optic nerve can be interpreted in the brain as normal vision is still in question.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

We have learned a lot about the eye and how it works without necessarily understanding what the brain is doing when they implant these devices.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

I actually want to read the links. All of this discussion has gotten me interested. So your prediction is wrong. I probably missed the post or I was getting too many posts to take the time to read in depth.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

It bypasses the retina but the photoreceptors are acting as the retina. It's a replacement part, is all. As is the case with the retina, the glasses do not prove that signals being sent along the optic nerve are what the brain is interpreting. Take away the object and try to get the brain to interpret signals coming from the optic nerve that will give us any kind of sight. Our goal here is to see if light itself can produce vision without there being any object present. So far I have never seen this, and never will.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

Again, if the brain is stimulated by a replacement optic nerve, it still doesn't prove how the brain works in relation to the eyes. That is exactly why Lessans came to this conclusion in an indirect way. You can't figure it out the way you're doing it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it does, and you can do it or not do it. But you wouldn't not want to do it, which you're failing to grasp because you want to make this simple principle into something that is anything but what it actually does to preserve a healthy relationship. You want Lessans to be wrong in the worst way which is clouding your thinking.

It does if that's what you want, but you are hurting them if you do this, and you know it. They wouldn't blame you if you did, but you won't get any satisfaction becoming incapable of taking care of your family when this is a responsibility that you took on when you took a wife and had a family.

Sure it requires you to do something. Ultimately you have the right-of-way, but why would you not want to show your love to your wife and family in a situation like this? Going fishing would be the least desirable choice under the circumstances because seeing your infant born would give you great joy. Your reasoning has become absurd, which is why you are failing to see the total picture.

Having a baby is a special circumstance, do you not agree? If a special circumstance came up such as a birth of a baby, there would be nothing to keep a husband away from seeing his baby born. Not only would he want this for himself; he would want to show his love to his wife who needs him at that moment. Wild horses couldn't keep him away. You deserve two duh's for that.

Everything depends people doing 'the right thing', but it is always 'the right thing' according to Lessans. It fails, because one size does not fit all, and there will be situations where some people will not do 'the right thing' according to Lessans.

[LadyShea]

light, which does not cause sight because there is nothing in the light to cause it.

Assertion

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He filed the suit for a reason. If you understood his justification, you would be more sympathetic but it seems to go in one ear and out the other.

It was frivolous, in the legal sense, whether he had reasons and whether anyone was sympathetic to those reasons.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our goal here is to see if light itself can produce vision without there being any object present. So far I have never seen this, and never will.

You're lying again. You've been shown this multiple times from astronomical data. Your response was 'something else must be going on'.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It bypasses the retina but the photoreceptors are acting as the retina. It's a replacement part, is all. As is the case with the retina, the glasses do not prove that signals being sent along the optic nerve are what the brain is interpreting. Take away the object and try to get the brain to interpret signals coming from the optic nerve that will give us any kind of sight. Our goal here is to see if light itself can produce vision without there being any object present. So far I have never seen this, and never will.

Again, if the brain is stimulated by a replacement optic nerve, it still doesn't prove how the brain works in relation to the eyes. That is exactly why Lessans came to this conclusion in an indirect way. You can't figure it out the way you're doing it.

I believe that there have been some experiments that stimulate the brain and produce an image from only a computer program with no object present.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

That's OK, I'm not sure either. When I try to be serious and polite you get mad anyway and talk in frustrating circles and I'd rather laugh than get annoyed.

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.

So kids never have to do any chores unless they want to and if mom doesn't want rats and roaches taking over the house she should clean it herself? What about school and homework - do they have to do that or do they get to decide at 6 that they don't need more than a 1st grade education?

Nobody would dare agree with anything Lessans has to say because that breaks the unwritten rule.

I think that people might agree if they didn't have to disregard the laws of physics, the scientific method and reduce their relationships down to a formula over who gets to be the most selfish in order to do so. Besides, you're doing it all wrong, you know that and you're just wasting time on these forums and not really trying to convince anyone. If you did you would have started to present it like an adult a decade ago. I'm still not convinced that you don't know that you're trolling with this style of communication because you're wasting the time of a lot of knowledgeable people given that nothing they say is ever, ever going to shake you from your certainty. There is absolutely no person, test or situation that can convince you that even a shred of this stuff is incorrect or inapplicable in real world scenarios so you'll never get past this chapter. If everyone (or anyone) did agree with the first two discoveries what would you say next?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but to say that these impulses that are carried to the brain from the optic nerve can be interpreted in the brain as normal vision is still in question.

Define "normal" vision and explain why "normal" vision should be the benchmark.

With bionic eyes we start with NO vision, and they produce Vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have learned a lot about the eye and how it works without necessarily understanding what the brain is doing when they implant these devices.

Vision vs. No Vision is evidence that they work as designed. The brain is receiving impulses sent by the implant and those people can then see something. What else could be happening other than interpretation of impulses since that's all the implant is designed to do...send impulses...and the intended effect is achieved, vision?

It bypasses the retina but the photoreceptors are acting as the retina. It's a replacement part, is all.

Of course, because photoreceptors are necessary to create the impulses to send to the brain.

Even you admitted that the retina and its rods and cones are required conditions of efferent sight...though you have never explained how they function or why they are there if vision is efferent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As is the case with the retina, the glasses do not prove that signals being sent along the optic nerve are what the brain is interpreting.

Of course they do, since that's what they have been designed and built to do and have been shown to do.

Again, do you think these work accidentally some completely different way than they were designed and built to work?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Take away the object and try to get the brain to interpret signals coming from the optic nerve that will give us any kind of sight.

Visual hallucinations can be produced through electrical stimulation of the brain, but as you will undoubtedly agree, this is not "sight". So what do you mean by "take away the object"?

People with Charles Bonnet syndrome see all kinds of things...people, buildings, landscapes, though they have lost their sight due to eye diseases. The things they see aren't there at all, these are hallucinations. How does efferent vision explain seeing things that aren't there through eyes that don't work? What is the function of the retina in efferent vision? Why do the eyes contain millions of afferent photoreceptor neurons if they are nothing more than windows with no afferent structures?

You are the one who has not explained efferent vision well enough to make it at all plausible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our goal here is to see if light itself can produce vision without there being any object present.

Define "present". Present where? Present when? Define object...must it be material?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So far I have never seen this, and never will.

You might have, depending on the definitions you provide

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When did I ever say there wasn't a connection between the retina, the optic nerve, and the brain? There has to be recognition that light is present. That's what the optic nerve is doing, but to say that these impulses that are carried to the brain from the optic nerve can be interpreted in the brain as normal vision is still in question.

We have learned a lot about the eye and how it works without necessarily understanding what the brain is doing when they implant these devices.

So now Peacegirl admits that there are impulses through the optic nerve to the brain, but no signals that can produce an image. That would make the optic nerve afferent, and it has been demonstrated that the optic nerve is, in fact, afferent and not efferent. Nothing is transmitted from the brain to the eyes through the optic nerve. Science has observed via tests and experiments that there are signals from the eye through the optic nerve to the brain that are intrepreted as an image. Peacegirl/Lessans claims that the brain is 'doing something else' but offers no explination of what the brain is doing or how the brain does it. On the other hand science offers an explination that is backed up with experimental data, and reasonable ideas.