A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is because you don't understand why looking out at the external world changes the way light is used in terms of what it is that we see. It does not change the properties of light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If light is located somewhere there must be a physical mechanism by which it became located there. Without a physical mechanism, then the properties of light are changed.

That's just not true. If you tried to understand why efferent vision changes what we see because it's the complete opposite of the way we think we see, maybe you'd be a little more reserved before answering.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Without the mechanism, there is an impossible phenomena being asserted. Of course I don't understand, you are not explaining any mechanism, you are claiming magic.

We've gone over this 100 times, and I'm not going to keep going over the same thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not weaseling away from explaining why light is at the retina. If you put everything that he has explained together, maybe you will eventually see why distance is not a factor, and why the image of the object (e.g. the non-absorbed photons) does not get reflected or travel through space/time in the efferent account, even though light travels.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Images are not part of this set of questions, only the location of light and how it got located there. So this response is yet another weasel.

There is no way in hell you will understand this model unless science recognizes that there's something to this. Then you'll pay attention and won't be so damn cocky.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think I'm being contradictory, and am trying to weasel my way out of a claim that is implausible in your eyes, I'm very sorry, but that's not what I'm doing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's exactly what you are doing by avoiding the actual questions and responding to strawmen of your own making.

Your claim that light simply comes into spontaneous existence at the retina when we see something is not "implausible in (my) eyes", it is impossible within the framework of physical laws.

Again, you're failing to understand why the photons (the image) are at the retina already when the object is bright enough and large enough. That doesn't mean the explanation given is inaccurate, but I'm really tired of arguing about this.

If that is your goal, to show me what a fundie I am, it's a lost cause because, although I have total faith in my father, I also see the soundness of his observations. No one has actually answered the question as to why this claim is causing so much anger.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans claim isn't causing anger, your dishonesty is.

That's easy to say, it just slips out anytime you don't like my answer.

It certainly doesn't change GPS systems, and it wouldn't cause the world to burn up, as people have speculated.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unsupported assertion. I posted exactly why real time seeing would preclude the existence of GPS a page or so back.

It absolutely would not change GPS systems. You're worse than David.

What if this knowledge changes our relationship to the external world in a positive way? Are you going to just dismiss this possibility because you are so sure you're right? Or are you going to give him a chance?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Argument from adverse consequences (fallacious reasoning)

Oh my god, you are such an arrogant person. It amazes me. I have no interest in continuing to talk to you on this subject.

Whatever you do is your prerogative. At this point though I'm tired of discussing the eyes because it's exhausting to repeat the same thing over and over and get nowhere. Instead of people considering that his claim may have merit, they are actually getting more and more incensed, and it's slowly building like a pressure cooker ready to explode. That's when the gang up starts. Therefore, it's a dead end discussion that will just give everyone more fodder to use for their daily fix of entertainment [at my expense]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your claims are being investigated for merit. You can't answer even the simplest questions about your model without contradicting yourself or the known laws of physics, so you avoid answering a lot of the time. That is frustrating to people.

Efferent vision is so different than afferent vision, people cannot even form a concept in their mind of how this can actually work. I looked at the latest posts, and they are filled with vitriol and mockery. I am letting this subject come to a close. I've given people enough food for thought to last them a lifetime. I've done all I can do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

There is nothing here that contradicts efferent vision. Please don't respond because I'm not going to answer anymore questions on this subject.

Global Positioning System satellites transmit signals to equipment on the ground. GPS receivers passively receive satellite signals; they do not transmit.

How Does GPS Work?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The laser is turned on, isn't it? Turn it off and see what happens.

The red spot on the wall disappears. So tell me, what are we seeing when we see the red spot on the wall? In short, what is the red spot?

[The Lone Ranger]

Well, exactly as predicted -- and to the surprise of no one at all -- [b]peacegirl[\b] has announced that she has no intention of educating herself on devices that allow patients to see by direct stimulation of the visual cortex, bypassing not just the retina, but the optic nerve and indeed, the entire eye.

After all she said that such devices would disprove Lessans' claims regarding sight. So of course she's going to pretend that such devices don't exist, and she's going to assiduously avoid learning about them and how they work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Well, exactly as predicted -- and to the surprise of no one at all -- [b]peacegirl[b] has announced that she has no intention of educating herself on devices that allow patients to see by direct stimulation of the visual cortex, bypassing not just the retina, but the optic nerve and indeed, the entire eye.

After all she said that such devices would disprove Lessans' claims regarding sight. So of course she's going to pretend that such devices don't exist, and she's going to assiduously avoid learning about them and how they work.

This video was taken in Feb. of 2013. She had a retinal implant using electrodes. I'm curious to see how these devices stimulate the visual cortex to see, without any functioning retina, or a part that takes the place of one. I don't want to argue about this. If you think you're right, then let this conversation rest.

Video Library - The New York Times > Page Not Found

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So photons are at the retina...

...but they aren't traveling photons that traveled to get there...

...but now they are traveling photons again!

Strawman takes another pummeling.

We're not talking about non-absorbed photons, for his Sun example involves only light emission, and not reflection. And images or patterns are not photons. These words are not synonyms.

Where did they come from, and how do they get there?

You just agreed only a few pages ago that it was correct. You keep claiming to be disputing this, but whenever pressed you end up agreeing with it again and saying that you were disputing something else.

Already being there doesn't mean they didn't previously have to get there. When you open your fridge door, lo and behold, the food is already there (and doesn't have to sneak in after you open the door). But that food still had to get there previously by you going shopping and then returning to stock the fridge.

I'm trying to do just that, but you keep refusing to do so. The photons are at the retina. Great, let's work backwards. Where were they 5 seconds before?

Wrong word, and wrong question. We're not asking you why. We're asking you HOW the light gets to be at the retina. Where did it come from, and how did it get there?

It's exactly what you're doing, and you've been doing it for years.

Because it isn't.

Then take a break and come back when you're ready to actually answer questions instead of just weaseling and repeating your claims.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[The Lone Ranger]

Come now, peacegirl; you aren't trying very hard.

We've been able to get patients to see things by directly stimulating the visual cortex for decades now -- completely bypassing the retina, optic nerve, and the entire eye. And it's not like this information is secret or hidden or anything. You only have to make an effort to look it up.


You know -- the very thing you said would conclusively disprove Lessans' claims about how we see?


Of course, you originally said that bionic eyes would disprove Lessans' claims regarding how we see. When it was pointed out that we already have those, your first impulse was to lie and claim that you'd never said any such thing. When you own words were quoted back to you, you immediately moved the goalposts.

So I have no doubt that you'll move the goalposts again.


Still, the fact remains: You specified exactly what would disprove Lessans' claims regarding how we see. And those conditions have been met -- in abundance.

Thus, by your own criteria, Lessans' claims regarding how we see are disproved. Deal with it. Either that, or admit that you were lying when you claimed that you would accept that such devices would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Come now, peacegirl; you aren't trying very hard.

We've been able to get patients to see things by directly stimulating the visual cortex for decades now -- completely bypassing the retina, optic nerve, and the entire eye. And it's not like this information is secret or hidden or anything. You only have to make an effort to look it up.


You know -- the very thing you said would conclusively disprove Lessans' claims about how we see?


Of course, you originally said that bionic eyes would disprove Lessans' claims regarding how we see. When it was pointed out that we already have those, your first impulse was to lie and claim that you'd never said any such thing. When you own words were quoted back to you, you immediately moved the goalposts.

So I have no doubt that you'll move the goalposts again.


Still, the fact remains: You specified exactly what would disprove Lessans' claims regarding how we see. And those conditions have been met -- in abundance.

Thus, by your own criteria, Lessans' claims regarding how we see are disproved. Deal with it. Either that, or admit that you were lying when you claimed that you would accept that such devices would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision.

I guess I felt pressured to answer you (I don't call that lying which denotes being purposely deceitful), but until it's been proven that people can regain normal vision by interpreting these impulses (seeing contrast is not normal vision even though it's better than seeing nothing), we'll just have to wait and see. You don't have to respond because I'm not discussing this anymore.

[The Lone Ranger]

And, exactly as predicted, you're already trying to move the goalposts ...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And, exactly as predicted, you're already trying to move the goalposts ...

No I have not. I'm just not convinced that this whole process proves the eyes are not efferent. Light and dark patterns can be perceived, that is true, but does this mean what you think it means? Even here there is an object and a chip (taking the place of the retina, so everything stays intact even though it's an artificial replacement). These scientists are trying to replace the broken parts, or bypass them, but it still doesn't account for the fact that light alone will not provide an image, no matter how much light is present. If there is no object present, there is no image or pattern that can be made out or detected. This requires there to be external substance that is striking the retina or chip. Conclusion: I don't think this wonderful technology (which I'm not denying) proves that light can provide impulses that can be detected as sight. Without the object present, there IS no image, which means we're back to square one.

Artificial vision with wirelessly powered subretinal electronic implant alpha-IMS

[The Lone Ranger]

How can you possibly have missed the point? We can get people to "see" things through direct stimulation of the visual cortex. You don't need to involve the eyes at all. Nor does there have to be an actual object present within the patient's visual field.



Of course, you're trying to distract again, and you're blatantly shifting the goalposts.

Remember how you said that a bionic eye would be sufficient to disprove Lessans? Remember how you immediately denied that you had ever said such a thing when it was pointed out that bionic eyes already exist? Remember how you immediately shifted the goalposts when the lie was exposed?

Now you're blatantly attempting to shift the goalposts yet again, and hoping that no one notices. The problem is that you're about as subtle at it as is a rampaging bull elephant.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no object present, there is no image or pattern that can be made out or detected.

Of course there is. If light of one frequency is hitting one part of the retina (real or artificial) while light of a different frequency is hitting another part of the retina, then this is a pattern of light detection whose information can be sent to the brain. This is also exactly how a camera and film works. Different frequency light hits different parts of the film after coming from different parts of an object, resulting in an image with parts of differing colors. And this will happen so long as different frequencies of light are hitting different parts of the retina or film, regardless of whether or not the object the light came from is still in existence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Without the object present, there IS no image, which means we're back to square one.

You mean you're back to square one, and again back to making unsupported assertions that contradict observable reality.

[The Lone Ranger]

You know, you'd look a lot less hypocritical and dishonest if you'd just admit that Lessans' claims are unfalsifiable as far as you're concerned. You wouldn't have to keep changing your story so often, and you wouldn't have to keep moving the goalposts.

Oh, wait: you're still trying to pretend that this isn't a purely faith-based belief, aren't you? As if there's a single person alive stupid enough to believe that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't have to respond because I'm not discussing this anymore.

It appears that Peacegirl is admitting that she and the book are wrong, as now she is refusing to engage and discuss the subject. She is conceding that she has no argument and nothing to support her claims.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As if there's a single person alive stupid enough to believe that.

There might be one, but certainly no more.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I have not. I'm just not convinced that this whole process proves the eyes are not efferent. Light and dark patterns can be perceived, that is true, but does this mean what you think it means? Even here there is an object and a chip (taking the place of the retina, so everything stays intact even though it's an artificial replacement).

you claim that in the efferent model of vision the brain is 'looking out through the eyes' to preceive the outside world. In the cases where the brain is directly stimulated by electrodes implanted in the brain that are connected to a computer, what is the brain 'looking through' if there are no eyes present? Remember it's just the computer connected directly to the brain useing recorded images, no object present and no camera connected to the computer at the time the images are projected into the brain, so don't try to add extra conditions and confuse the issue.

[LadyShea]

There is nothing here that contradicts efferent vision. Please don't respond because I'm not going to answer anymore questions on this subject.

Then I won't ask you any questions. However, I will show you why GPS relies on the Theory of Relativity.

GPS and Relativity

GPS and Relativity

http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm

But GPS is an exception. Built at a cost of over $10 billion mainly for military navigation, GPS has rapidly transformed itself into a thriving commercial industry. The system is based on an array of 24 satellites orbiting the earth, each carrying a precise atomic clock. Using a hand-held GPS receiver which detects radio emissions from any of the satellites which happen to be overhead, users of even moderately priced devices can determine latitude, longitude and altitude to an accuracy which can currently reach 15 meters, and local time to 50 billionths of a second. Apart from the obvious military uses, GPS is finding applications in airplane navigation, oil exploration, wilderness recreation, bridge construction, sailing, and interstate trucking, to name just a few. Even Hollywood has met GPS, recently pitting James Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies" against an evil genius who was inserting deliberate errors into the GPS system and sending British ships into harm's way.

But in a relativistic world, things are not simple. The satellite clocks are moving at 14,000 km/hr in orbits that circle the Earth twice per day, much faster than clocks on the surface of the Earth, and Einstein's theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly, by about seven microseconds (millionths of a second) per day.

Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.

To determine its location, the GPS receiver uses the time at which each signal from a satellite was emitted, as determined by the on-board atomic clock and encoded into the signal, together the with speed of light, to calculate the distance between itself and the satellites it communicated with. The orbit of each satellite is known accurately. Given enough satellites, it is a simple problem in Euclidean geometry to compute the receiver's precise location, both in space and time. To achieve a navigation accuracy of 15 meters, time throughout the GPS system must be known to an accuracy of 50 nanoseconds, which simply corresponds to the time required for light to travel 15 meters.

http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm

The precision of GPS measurements is so great that it requires the application of Albert Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity for the reduction of its measurements. Professor Carroll Alley of the University of Maryland once articulated the significance of this fact at a scientific conference devoted to time measurement in 1979. He said, “I think it is appropriate ... to realize that the first practical application of Einstein’s ideas in actual engineering situations are with us in the fact that clocks are now so stable that one must take these small effects into account in a variety of systems that are now undergoing development or are actually in use in comparing time worldwide. It is no longer a matter of scientific interest and scientific application, but it has moved into the realm of engineering necessity.”

According to relativity theory, a moving clock appears to run slow with respect to a similar clock that is at rest. This effect is called “time dilation.” In addition, a clock in a weaker gravitational potential appears to run fast in comparison to one that is in a stronger gravitational potential. This gravitational effect is known in general as the “red shift” (only in this case it is actually a “blue shift”).

GPS satellites revolve around the earth with a velocity of 3.874 km/s at an altitude of 20,184 km. Thus on account of the its velocity, a satellite clock appears to run slow by 7 microseconds per day when compared to a clock on the earth’s surface. But on account of the difference in gravitational potential, the satellite clock appears to run fast by 45 microseconds per day. The net effect is that the clock appears to run fast by 38 microseconds per day. This is an enormous rate difference for an atomic clock with a precision of a few nanoseconds. Thus to compensate for this large secular rate, the clocks are given a rate offset prior to satellite launch of - 4.465 parts in 1010 from their nominal frequency of 10.23 MHz so that on average they appear to run at the same rate as a clock on the ground. The actual frequency of the satellite clocks before launch is thus 10.22999999543 MHz.

Although the GPS satellite orbits are nominally circular, there is always some residual eccentricity. The eccentricity causes the orbit to be slightly elliptical, and the velocity and altitude vary over one revolution. Thus, although the principal velocity and gravitational effects have been compensated by a rate offset, there remains a slight residual variation that is proportional to the eccentricity. For example, with an orbital eccentricity of 0.02 there is a relativistic sinusoidal variation in the apparent clock time having an amplitude of 46 nanoseconds. This correction must be calculated and taken into account in the GPS receiver.

The displacement of a receiver on the surface of the earth due to the earth’s rotation in inertial space during the time of flight of the signal must also be taken into account. This is a third relativistic effect that is due to the universality of the speed of light. The maximum correction occurs when the receiver is on the equator and the satellite is on the horizon. The time of flight of a GPS signal from the satellite to a receiver on the earth is then 86 milliseconds and the correction to the range measurement resulting from the receiver displacement is 133 nanoseconds. An analogous correction must be applied by a receiver on a moving platform, such as an aircraft or another satellite. This effect, as interpreted by an observer in the rotating frame of reference of the earth, is called the Sagnac effect. It is also the basis for a laser ring gyro in an inertial navigation system.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I have not. I'm just not convinced that this whole process proves the eyes are not efferent. Light and dark patterns can be perceived, that is true, but does this mean what you think it means? Even here there is an object and a chip (taking the place of the retina, so everything stays intact even though it's an artificial replacement). These scientists are trying to replace the broken parts, or bypass them, but it still doesn't account for the fact that light alone will not provide an image, no matter how much light is present. If there is no object present, there is no image or pattern that can be made out or detected. This requires there to be external substance that is striking the retina or chip. Conclusion: I don't think this wonderful technology (which I'm not denying) proves that light can provide impulses that can be detected as sight. Without the object present, there IS no image, which means we're back to square one.

Artificial vision with wirelessly powered subretinal electronic implant alpha-IMS

If there is no object present, there is no image or pattern that can be made out or detected
Define present.

This requires there to be external substance that is striking the retina or chip.
Yes, light

From the link: Additionally, the identification, localization and discrimination of objects improved significantly (n = 8; p < 0.05 for each subtest) in repeated tests over a nine-month period. Three subjects were able to read letters spontaneously and one subject was able to read letters after training in an alternative-force choice test. Five subjects reported implant-mediated visual perceptions in daily life within a field of 15° of visual angle. Control tests were performed each time with the implant's power source switched off. These data show that subretinal implants can restore visual functions that are useful for daily life.

I don't think this wonderful technology (which I'm not denying) proves that light can provide impulses that can be detected as sight.

Then what do you think these implants are doing? How do they work if not as designed?

Again from the link: In all nine enrolled subjects, the light-induced voltage changes generated by the implant that were assessed via electrical corneal recordings showed reliable and luminance-dependent signal generation.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you decide to change your attitude to one of respect, maybe I'll listen, but right now you consider this thread mere lulz, and I'm not willing to play this game.

Maybe if you changed your attitude to one that includes intellectual honesty you wouldn't generate so many lulz.

Do you see how many times you have resorted to "a decade ago"? Do you see how obnoxious this is? Shouldn't this give you pause when I tell you that you cannot go by my online history?

Of course I can go by your online history because it's relevant. In the real world success usually has an element of time to it and muddling around for 10 years without learning a single thing or convincing a single person says volumes about your ability to understand and market this information.

I am not interested in talking to you. You are worse than any libertarian philosopher who thinks he knows it all because man believed in free will long before now, so anything that is learned is falsified by virtue that the truth of free will has already been established.

OMGS she called me a libertarian! Is the the part where I'm supposed to freak out and start defending myself because she mentioned the one of the few things in the world that I find more ignorant, self-serving and naive than this book?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

OMGS she called me a libertarian! Is the the part where I'm supposed to freak out and start defending myself because she mentioned the one of the few things in the world that I find more ignorant, self-serving and naive than this book?

You never know with peacegirl, but she might be referring to libertarian free will.

http://www.theopedia.com/Libertarian_free_will

This might be the equivalent of saying you're a satanist in peacegirl's theology.

Good job!

[ChristinaM]

Damn smart people

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just not true. If you tried to understand why efferent vision changes what we see because it's the complete opposite of the way we think we see, maybe you'd be a little more reserved before answering.

It is true. Light has immutable properties that are consistent whether vision is involved or not. One of those properties is that it cannot bi-locate or teleport, it cannot be located somewhere without either traveling there, or being emitted there.

You keep asserting that light is "at the retina" without explaining how it became located there. You need to explain that or your assertions are impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way in hell you will understand this model unless science recognizes that there's something to this. Then you'll pay attention and won't be so damn cocky.

Science will not recognize this model because it contains impossibilities. I am not being cocky, I am telling you what the problems are with anyone, especially scientists, accepting this model as even remotely plausible.

You don't want to face the problems, you deny that they exist, yet somehow still think that someday science will investigate it on your terms? That is faith at work.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light and dark patterns can be perceived, that is true...

...but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?