A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Again, interpreting patterns is not true reading.

That is exactly what reading is. This typed symbol, a, is just a black pattern on a white background. You must interpret that pattern to see it as the letter a and the corresponding meaning of the letter a otherwise it is just a pattern.

If someone draws a T on my back, I would interpret it as a T, but I am not really reading it myself.

Yes you are, unless you think reading braille or sign language is not true reading either.

Read - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
a (1) : to receive or take in the sense of (as letters or symbols) especially by sight or touch (2) : to study the movements of (as lips) with mental formulation of the communication expressed (3)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Light does not have to be at the film instantaneously if the camera is the object is in the field of view of the camera. Of course I groked that right quick, because everyone originally thought that because the picture turns out the same as what we see, light must travel, but that's not the case at all.

[Vivisectus]

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.

Excellent! So according to the right-of-way system, my desire to smoke crack cocaine gets right of way over my kids desire to eat meals and sleep indoors, but you feel that in a world where the circumstances were different, this would not matter. Glad we cleared that up.

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.

So I am to gather that this rule only works in an environment were people already do not want to hurt anyone's feelings or treat them unfairly in any way... but wait a minute! Wasn't this rule supposed to tell us what was unfair, what constitutes an infringement, what is an unreasonable expectation? Is it not a case of "If you want to know what is an infringement and what isn't, simply apply this rule to find out?"

What exactly is the use of a rule to determine what is OK to expect and do, if you can apparently not use it to determine what is OK to expect and do?

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.

Excellent: so you agree that my desire to go fishing gets right of way. And it is not quite so absurd, you know. All I have done is up the stakes, so to speak, to show you the inherent inequality of the rule. There is no real difference between this and your ex-husbands lack of cuddlyness - but I will get back to that later.

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.

I rather think the duh is on you. The "special circumstances" do not refer to the events in the examples. Let me lead you through it bit by bit:

Your statement boils down to:

"If two people have desires which cannot both be met, then a desire that does not require active participation from the other person gets right of way over a desire which does require active participation, and this is always fair".

But as we have seen, this is not a good way to determine if it is ethically OK to act on a desire at all. Some desires are far more important than others: there is no simple one-size-fits-all solution. My childrens desire to eat meals is a LOT more important than my desire for a fancy sportscar, and my wife's desire for support during childbirth is a LOT more important than my desire to go fishing, just to name two big examples.

But even in your own examples, it simply does not work. Let us say your mum has passed away a day before... does your husbands desire not to cuddle get right of way over your desire for some emotional support?

Obviously not. And yet you categorically stated that your husbands desire to be somewhere else in stead gets right of way, because he is not asking anything of you, and you are asking something from him!

You can try to hand-wave that away and say "Ah but that just would not happen", but that is neither here nor there: you present it as a rule, a guideline, a means for determining what is OK and what is not. Using this rule to determine what is OK to ask and expect of a person will make sure your marriage is equitable and harmonious, you claim.

But as we can clearly see, it simply does not work. Just like efferent sight needs sight to be afferent first, this rule requires you to determine if something is reasonable first, and only then can you use it to determine what is reasonable without getting unreasonable results.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

Of course it means in actual physical contact. This is not magic, teleportation, or seeing faster than the speed of light.

[Vivisectus]

Please to explain the meaning of "Groking" - how does one groke, and when is it appropriate to do so?

ED: aha! it is grokking... which I now totally grok, after a quick rabbithole.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it means in actual physical contact. This is not magic, teleportation, or seeing faster than the speed of light.

Of course it is. You said we see in real time. That's seeing faster than the speed of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

Everything you said is right except the latter; that there is no connection between photons and objects. Say it 100 more times and maybe you'll convince yourself.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does not have to be at the film instantaneously if the camera is the object is in the field of view of the camera.

Light has to be in physical contact with the film in order for a photograph to be made. That's how cameras work. If there is no light in physical contact with the film, there is no photograph. If we do not have to wait for light to arrive to see something, but cameras must wait for light to arrive to take a photograph, you have cameras taking pictures of something different than the eyes see.

You couldn't have that because it so easily disproves Lessans, so you asserted that cameras take photographs in real time, despite the absence of a brain looking out of the lens as if through a window, and despite the absence of light physically located on Earth, where the camera is, in the Sun on at noon scenario. You have tried ever since to make that very square peg fit into a round hole by simply asserting that light is on Earth at 12:00 noon when the Sun is turned on, and in physical contact with retinas and cameras film, even though light is not yet on Earth at all according to Lessans, because it is still in transit and will be until 12:08.

You have repeatedly refused to explain how light can be on Earth and be not on Earth at the same time, even though this is as blatant a contradiction as is possible.

everyone originally thought that because the picture turns out the same as what we see, light must travel, but that's not the case at all.

Light must travel to come to be located on the surface of camera film, yes. Light cannot be somewhere without a mechanism by which it has come to be there without violating the laws of physics.

[LadyShea]

Describe in detail this "connection" between traveling light photons and objects, please, and share your evidence that this is true. I am all ears.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please to explain the meaning of "Groking" - how does one groke, and when is it appropriate to do so?

ED: aha! it is grokking... which I now totally grok, after a quick rabbithole.

If you haven't seen this yet, I hope it helps. I believe Heinlein used the term in other stories?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

Yes, electric signals are sent which stimulates the brain as does signals from the optic nerve. I never disputed that. What I am disputing is that these signals were transduced into impulses that are then decoded in the brain itself. It is still a theory as to what the brain is doing.

Of course there's a screen. It is the background upon which the word VOLT was carefully spelled out.

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?

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.

But that is exactly what is being questioned. It hasn't been proven that this light --- which stimulates the optic nerve --- is transduced into signals that can be decoded into an image.

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)?

When did I ever say it accidentally successfully works some completely different way with cameras? It works the same way.

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.

Being stimulated by light, yes. Transduced into interpretable signals, no.

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.

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.

It's laughable how you think you have me pegged.

I have always said that the signals being given by the optic nerve should not involve the retina in order to be proven true. You are the one that's trying so hard to discredit Lessans because that would make you important, but you won't be able to LadyShea. In your eyes this would make you the queen not only of this thread, but of all other threads relating to this issue. You would be on top of the world. It's not going to happen unless the proof is conclusive, which it IS NOT. But keep trying. I will bow down to you as the most important woman in all of history if you can prove that we see afferently. I will give homage to you. Holy of all holies is LadyShea. It doesn't sound too shabby, does it?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The retina is the light sensor. A light sensor must be involved to see things. This device is the light sensor in place of the non-functional retina. In the external camera models, the retina is not involved.

The film is equivalent to a retina. I agree that the device is the light sensor which takes the place of the non-functional retina. But that doesn't answer the question as to what those signals across the optic nerve are doing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you figure out yet what you really meant when you repeatedly used the phrase "on a screen"?

Yes, and I answered you.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

That isn't even the argument. We know patients see something, but that doesn't prove that what they see is an interpretation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

I am not being histrionic, and I'm not purposely insulting you. I just don't like it when you think you have this all wrapped up, which you do not.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

The fact that you say it's bullshit weaseling is bullshit, and what I am calling you out on. You did the same thing with his discovery on determinism. You actually think that what is actual and what is necessary creates a modal fallacy. It does no such thing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

When you tell me that Lessans' reasoning is circular and that these are just assertions, this is what I call overbearing pride because neither of these accusations are accurate. You wouldn't act like this if Lessans was someone known, but because he wasn't you feel you are his intellectual equal, and therefore you can confront him the way you're doing. You wouldn't act like this if it was Einstein talking, and you know it. Please don't tell me you would act the same way, because you know you wouldn't. The way you come off is a statement of intellectual superiority. Isn't that what you're trying to prove? How much smarter you are than Lessans?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything you said is right except the latter; that there is no connection between photons and objects. Say it 100 more times and maybe you'll convince yourself.

I don't need to say it, everyone else says it, and scientists have tested it with expriments that show it to be true. You are the only person who, incorrectly, says it.

[LadyShea]

Of course it means in actual physical contact. This is not magic, teleportation, or seeing faster than the speed of light.

Can your butt be in physical contact with the chair if you have not yet reached the chair because you are still traveling across the room?

Every time you say that light is on physical contact with the retina on Earth, despite no light having reached Earth yet, you are saying the exact thing.

So, if you maintain this is the case, it is either magic, teleportation, or faster than lightspeed.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything you said is right except the latter; that there is no connection between photons and objects. Say it 100 more times and maybe you'll convince yourself.

I feel your pain. People also get almost everything about bird-flight right, except for the lift being generated by wings.

[thedoc]

Anything that happens "Instantly" over a distance, violates the known laws of physics, especially relativity which states that information cannot travel faster than light speed.

[Vivisectus]

Isn't that what you're trying to prove? How much smarter you are than Lessans?

That would give you the kind of bragging rights you would gain by beating Stephen Hawking in a cagefight.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, where are we now?


Originally, peacegirl's claim was that if anyone invented a functioning bionic eye, this would disprove Lessans' claims about how we see.

What's that? They already exist?! Time to shift those goalposts! So then it was claimed that they would have to provide "normal vision" in order to disprove Lessans' claims regarding how we see.

Wait, what's that? The best models allow patients to recognize and distinguish between different faces, and to read large print? Time to shift those goalposts again! So the next claim was that Lessans would be disproved if the devices worked by "bypassing the retina."

What's that!!?? That's exactly what they do? In some models, the photoreceptors aren't even inside the eye? Time to shift the goalposts yet again!


Ah, screw it. As of now, peacegirl is on the record as admitting that no bionic eye could possibly convince her that Lessans was wrong about how we see. It doesn't matter if the photoreceptors are in the eye or outside of the eye. It doesn't matter if the device stimulates the optic nerve or stimulates the visual cortex directly. If the device allows someone to see, this just means that no matter how the people who designed and built it think it works, "something else" is going on, and Lessans was right all along.



So, the original claim that a functioning bionic eye would prove to peacegirl's satisfaction that Lessans was wrong about how we see was a blatant lie on her part. Q.E.D. Unfortunately for her, she seriously underestimated the state of the art when she made the initial claim.


This also demonstrates that her claims that Lessans' "model" is falsifiable are utter BS. Even when the falsification conditions that she herself specifies are met, she still refuses to admit the possibility that Lessans could have been mistaken.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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 thought you were being sarcastic with that question. Have you heard of the saying, "the boy who cried wolf?"

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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 had a difficult time deciding where to put the thread, but people expect hard science to be in the science category. This knowledge, although factual, was borne out of philosophical thought. The free will/determinism debate has always been considered philosophical, so that's what led me to my decision to put it in philosophy.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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

Light, but the laser is an object.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

I answered someone. Maybe it was thedoc. I said that my husband did not know these principles. It takes two to tango. If he had known, we might still be married.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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

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

I meant this term as a bridge or channel. It allows the eyes to see what is out there. Maybe that's not the best term, but you get the gist, don't you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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

It depends. Sometimes the answers are not obvious, or can't be found, through direct observation. It takes a little bit more investigation to put the pieces of the puzzle together, but that doesn't mean that his observations were inaccurate.

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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?

I have answered what puts light at the retina. If the requirements of efferent vision are met, we will see the object, which means the non-absorbed photons have to be at the retina since we're in optical range. If we fall out of optical range, we will not see the object which means there will be no non-absorbed light at the retina.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

Right thing? What are you babbling about now? There is no "right thing" when it comes to personal desire.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You act like afferent vision is a fact and his claim is without any substance.

He only acts that way because afferent vision is a fact and Lessans claims are without any substance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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!

He can, he did and his analogy is spot on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You want Lessans to be wrong in the worst way which is clouding your thinking.

No such effort is required. Lessans is already wrong, in the worst way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Those two sentences are just teeming with assumptions. That everyone wants to show their love for their wife and family is an assumption. That every married man actually loves his wife and family is an assumption. That witnessing the birth of one's infant child would always be a source of great joy is an assumption. However, the biggest assumption of all, and one that runs throughout the right-of-way principle, is the assumption that everyone will rate the importance and value of their competing desires according to the same scale that you and Lessans use.

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.

So, are you saying that the sole function of the optic nerve is to act as some sort of alarm system that alerts the brain to the fact that there is something that ought to be looked at?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

That is right TLR, indirect observation is always more reliable than direct observation and inferences always trump evidence. As a scientist you should already know this really basic stuff.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that is exactly what is being questioned. It hasn't been proven that this light --- which stimulates the optic nerve --- is transduced into signals that can be decoded into an image.

Actually, it has. That takes care of that objection. Is there anything else we can help you with?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just don't like it when you think you have this all wrapped up, and you don't.

You mean like how you think you have it all wrapped up and everyone else is wrong? Is that the kind of patronizing and arrogant attitude that you don't like?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Assertion

No, these were observations. Sorry that you don't see it yet, maybe you will when someone of high esteem gives credence to this knowledge.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

He didn't spend the taxpayer's money to any large degree. Even if a little taxpayer money was used, it would have been well worth it because the end justified the means. If it had helped him to get an audience of real scientists, this knowledge may have already been brought to light. But he already knew how he was going to be perceived. That's why he said: "After that our political leaders had two choices; to believe that I was a genius or a crackpot. Did I really give them a choice?" He did this as a last ditch effort because he knew he wouldn't be here much longer. Maturin harps on this because he has nothing else to harp on.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So, how does it get there? You didn't answer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

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

Astronomical data? You mean seeing the moons of Jupiter? This is not conclusive proof that what we are seeing is a delayed image of the moon. It may look that way, but there are alternate possibilities. If you believe this is 100% conclusive, I'm not going to argue with you. You are entitled to believe what you want. Whether or not we see in real or delayed time will not change any of our technologies, nor will it prevent any future technologies from being discovered.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought you were being sarcastic with that question. Have you heard of the saying, "the boy who cried wolf?"

Yes, I have heard the phrase before. How does that explain how you know that dogs don't have language?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I had a difficult time deciding where to put the thread, but people expect hard science to be in the science category. This knowledge, although factual, was borne out of philosophical thought. The free will/determinism debate has always been considered philosophical, so that's what led me to my decision to put it in philosophy.

Fair enough, you realized that it isn't really science so you posted in philosophy. I'll buy that. Thanks for answering.