A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

[thedoc]

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

[thedoc]

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.

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.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

[thedoc]

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.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

[Angakuk]

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?

[LadyShea]

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?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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

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. 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

[LadyShea]

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.

[The Lone Ranger]

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.

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.

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

[LadyShea]

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.

[thedoc]

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?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

[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.

[The Lone Ranger]

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!

[thedoc]

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?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered what puts light at the retina.

Can you see the part of the question that you didn't answer?

[Spacemonkey]

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?