|
|
06-20-2013, 08:01 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
|
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.
|
The computer program is putting out the light that is stimulating the optic nerve. Take away the pixels on the screen, and see if the brain can interpret an image.
|
06-20-2013, 08:01 PM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
When we see something, do we see the object itself or do we see the light reflected off of or emitted by the object?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
06-20-2013, 08:05 PM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
Or maybe not. You don't actually know that this principle will work in practice because it has never actually been put into practice. Isn't that right?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
06-20-2013, 08:09 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
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.
|
Really it's a shame Lessans didn't get an audience with Carter, After all Carter could have used something to put a smile on his face.
|
06-20-2013, 08:11 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
Quote:
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.
|
I admit I could come off like I'm mad (I've been attacked so many times that I am on the defensive), but I am not really angry at all. I just hope that my sincerity in answering you isn't taken as a joke.
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
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?
|
Your questions are premature Christina. There is no way I can explain the raising of children in the new world and do it justice before you have a grasp of his first discovery.
Quote:
Nobody would dare agree with anything Lessans has to say because that breaks the unwritten rule.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
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.
|
I'm not sure what you mean by "who gets to be the most selfish." This is to try to prevent people from being selfish --- thinking only of themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
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.
|
Like an adult? What a strange thing to say. Where am I not being an adult?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
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.
|
Why should it if I'm certain? You have set up a syllogism that sounds like this:
Other people know better than Lessans.
They are certain he is wrong about the eyes.
Therefore, I should be certain he is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM
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?
|
I don't know what I'd say next. Maybe I wouldn't say anything. Maybe I would relax a little, and do some gardening.
|
06-20-2013, 08:14 PM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anagakuk
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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?
|
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?
|
No, I don't get the gist. Whether you use the words conduit, bridge or channel, you are still talking about a means of conveying something from one point in space to another. What is being conveyed by your conduit/bridge/channel?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
06-20-2013, 08:14 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
|
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.
|
The computer program is putting out the light that is stimulating the optic nerve. Take away the pixels on the screen, and see if the brain can interpret an image.
|
No, the computer is wired directly to the brain and produces electrical signals that duplicate the impulses in the nerve. There is no screen that the subject needs to look at, the retina and eye are bypassed completely, and there is no object, even a screen, that the subject is looking at.
|
06-20-2013, 08:20 PM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Observed reality can be deceitful. The only way to know what's going on is indirectly.
|
Quote:
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.
|
It doesn't mean that Lessans observations were accurate either. Why should anyone think that the subject of vision is one of those special cases where direct observation and experimental evidence are unreliable?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
06-20-2013, 08:21 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Right thing? What are you babbling about now? There is no "right thing" when it comes to personal desire.
|
For once you are correct, there is no "right thing", for every situation and that is why the 'right-of-way' system described by Lessans will never work, and conscience will never work the same way for everyone.
|
06-20-2013, 08:24 PM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
What puts the light at the retina and how does it do that?
|
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.
|
That is just another way of saying that if we see something then the photons must be at our retina. It answers neither of my questions. What puts the photons at the retina and how does it do that?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
06-20-2013, 08:26 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
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.
|
Are you saying they play Jeopardy in a cage now? Of course Peacegirl would loose, she can never state anything as a question, only an assertion.
Actually I'm having a hard time picturing Alex Trebek in a striped shirt.
|
06-20-2013, 08:40 PM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
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.
|
What might those be?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
06-20-2013, 08:46 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
|
You are still simply saying that light is at the retina. You have not explained how it gets there.
Do the non absorbed photons travel out from the object? Do they surround the object like an atmosphere?
|
06-20-2013, 09:00 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
light, which does not cause sight because there is nothing in the light to cause it.
|
Assertion
|
No, these were observations.
|
How did he observe the properties of light and how did he observe the workings of the eyes and brain? Also, there is nothing in light at all. The light itself is the sight stimulus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Sorry that you don't see it yet, maybe you will when someone of high esteem gives credence to this knowledge.
|
We've already discussed that I don't give a single shit how high someone is esteemed, and that the evidence is and will always be the deciding factor in whether or not I am convinced of something?
If a person of high esteem or low esteem or whatever produces excellent evidence using impeccable methodology, then I will take a second look at Lessans claims
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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.
|
It still had no legal merit, which means it was frivolous by the definition used in law. Whether you think it was justified, it was frivolous
Last edited by LadyShea; 06-20-2013 at 10:18 PM.
|
06-20-2013, 09:11 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The computer program is putting out the light that is stimulating the optic nerve. Take away the pixels on the screen, and see if the brain can interpret an image.
|
What pixels on what screen? You said the "screen" was just reality, Lessans screen of substance or whatever, but you keep talking about screens with regards to bionic eyes as if you think there is a physical, manmade screen presenting images to the patients.
So which is it?
And, deep brain stimulation can produce visual hallucinations.
|
06-20-2013, 09:40 PM
|
|
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
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.
|
Describe one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The computer program is putting out the light that is stimulating the optic nerve.
|
The optic nerve is not photosensitive. As has been explained to you. Repeatedly.
Quote:
Take away the pixels on the screen, and see if the brain can interpret an image.
|
Good grief, that's a remarkably ignorant thing to say! We have known that direct stimulation of the visual cortex (no pixels on computer screens necessary) can produce visual responses for decades.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.” -- Socrates
|
06-20-2013, 09:44 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The computer program is putting out the light that is stimulating the optic nerve. Take away the pixels on the screen, and see if the brain can interpret an image.
|
What pixels on what screen? You said the "screen" was just reality, Lessans screen of substance or whatever, but you keep talking about screens with regards to bionic eyes as if you think there is a physical, manmade screen presenting images to the patients.
So which is it?
And, deep brain stimulation can produce visual hallucinations.
|
Hello LadyShea, I don't mean to be picky, (actually I do mean to be picky, but anyhow) I am having a problem with the word 'hallucinations'. I understand how you are useing it as indicating seeing images without an object being present, but it also has other conotations that Peacegirl and others may not understand, which would be an image of which there is no object, nor has there ever been one. For myself I would prefer a 'visual image' because the experiments I am refering to had the image of an object stored on a computer and then transmitted to the subject, (and I'm going on memory because this was some time ago) sometimes through the optic nerve and sometimes directly into the brain. I just think 'visual image' is a more accurate description of what is produced by bionoc sight aids, and may be less confusing to some, certainly less confusing to me.
|
06-20-2013, 09:46 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
For myself I would prefer a 'visual image' because the experiments I am refering to had the image of an object stored on a computer and then transmitted to the subject
|
I see, I am not familiar with that experiment, thedoc, so "no object" didn't make any sense to me.
|
06-20-2013, 09:50 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am not familiar with that experiment, thedoc, do you have a link?
|
Sorry, it was a long time ago, and may have been on a PBS special or educational program. I should have done an internet search but I didn't, TLR posted something to that effect, perhaps he is familiar with the research?
|
06-20-2013, 09:55 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
For myself I would prefer a 'visual image' because the experiments I am refering to had the image of an object stored on a computer and then transmitted to the subject
|
I see, I am not familiar with that experiment, thedoc, so "no object" didn't make any sense to me.
|
'No object' in the sense that the image of an object was stored in the computer memory and when the experiment was conducted the object was not present and not in visual range of the subject, only the signals from the computer program, that mimicked the signals from the eye, were transmitted to the subject.
|
06-20-2013, 10:08 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
That's pretty cool. I would like to see any research anyone can find on that.
Also, there is no object present when we see images on a TV or monitor, anyway. So peacegirl is still talking out her ass. A house on the TV is not an actual house, it's not an object at all....it's just a pattern of light.
|
06-20-2013, 10:19 PM
|
|
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Direct stimulation of the visual cortex to get people to "see" images has been done for decades. Here's a link to the abstract from a 1974 paper, for instance. I could look up some more stuff later.
It works in reverse, too. The visual cortex of the brain maps out your surroundings. By planting electrodes in the brain of anesthetized cats, researchers were able to see which areas of the brain were receiving input from the optic nerves when the cat looked at different patterns. Accordingly, with a bit of experience, the researchers could tell what pattern the cat was seeing simply by observing the corresponding pattern of neural activity in the cat's occipital cortex.
Fascinating stuff!
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.” -- Socrates
|
06-20-2013, 10:50 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
That's pretty cool. I would like to see any research anyone can find on that.
Also, there is no object present when we see images on a TV or monitor, anyway. So peacegirl is still talking out her ass. A house on the TV is not an actual house, it's not an object at all....it's just a pattern of light.
|
And if the image is from an old movie on video tape or DVD, the actual 'house' may not even exist when we are looking at the image of the house, or any other object or person, on the screen. How many movies have you watched where the actors in that movie are now dead?
|
06-20-2013, 10:51 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
What puts the light at the retina and how does it do that?
|
I have answered what puts light at the retina.
|
Can you see the part of the question that you didn't answer?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
06-20-2013, 10:53 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
|
Bump.
|
Do you stand by your above previous answers or not?
Why won't you answer?
Why do you keep running away from the problems in your account instead of trying to address them?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 39 (0 members and 39 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:22 PM.
|
|
|
|