A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

You keep insisting that he made mistakes (as if you know ) when I don't believe he did.

Molecules of light
Trillions of babies being born
The wrong answer to his own math problem
The eyes do not contain afferent nerves

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In both models, we cannot see without light. We are using light in different ways but light is necessary in both accounts. In the efferent account it is that same bent light (due to the convex lens) that will cause the eyes to see the bug magnified. We are still seeing the bug in real time, just larger.

So do you agree that we are not seeing the "real object" at all, and therefore retract your statement?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, this doesn't have to be a controlled experiment. It is an observation which can have value depending on the skill of the person making the observation. So let's not talk about pictures and dogs. There are other ways to prove that dogs do not have the ability to match individual features with their masters.

OK, forget the controlled experiment part. Have you tested this claim in any way?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is always traveling LadyShea, but the efferent account is what changes this phenomenon.

Your efferent account purports to be an explanation of a phenomenon, in this case sight. An account that explains or describes a phenomenon cannot change the phenomenon it is explaining or describing. If it could change it, it would no longer be explaining or describing the same phenomenon that it originally purported to be explaining or describing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Molecules of light

Yes, he used the wrong word. So deny that he made a discovery because of this.

Trillions of babies being born

This wasn't even in the book. Again, if you want to find mistakes to deny that he has a discovery, you will.

The wrong answer to his own math problem

He didn't have a wrong answer and you know it. It was a typo. He would not have put it in the book if he didn't know how to answer it. If you want to find mistakes to use against him which have nothing to do with the actual discovery, you will miss the boat altogether.


The eyes do not contain afferent nerves

He did not say the eyes don't contain afferent nerves. You're such a liar.

He said "The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your efferent account purports to be an explanation of a phenomenon, in this case sight. An account that explains or describes a phenomenon cannot change the phenomenon it is explaining or describing. If it could change it, it would no longer be explaining or describing the same phenomenon that it originally purported to be explaining or describing.

What do you mean I can't change the phenomenon I am describing? All I'm doing is offering an alternate explanation as to how Lessans believed the eyes work. How am I no longer explaining or describing the same phenomenon that I purported to be explaining?

[Spacemonkey]

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean I can't change the phenomenon...?

How am I no longer explaining or describing the same phenomenon...?

Because when something is changed it is no longer the same.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not say the eyes don't contain afferent nerves. You're such a liar.

He said "The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ."

thanks for proving my point. As I said, this is another area where you and Lessans fail to understand good scholarship, you think you can find and correct your own mistakes...how can you do that if you don't think you made a mistake?

Trillions of babies is in the version I have
We have no evidence that the wrong math answer was a typo rather than a mistake. Either way the answer in the book was the wrong one. If not for Ceptimus, it would have stayed wrong. Which proves my point yet again.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Molecules of light
Trillions of babies being born
The wrong answer to his own math problem
The eyes do not contain afferent nerves

Those were not mistakes, LadyShea. Lessans was a humble man who admitted when he was wrong. Since he never acknowledged error as to any of those statements, it necessarily follows in a mathematical, scientific and undeniable1 manner that the statements were not erroneous.

1 Which translates to "undeniable, undeniable and undeniable" in English.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Aren't one of these requirements that light be at the eye. If so then how can the eye see the sun instantly when it is first turned on when it has not had time to travel to the eye?

Then how does the lens bend light? Please explain how a lens can bend light without the speed of light being a factor.

How does the lens bend light? It bends light because the light strikes the convex lens which causes it to bend. We don't have to wait 8.5 minutes for this to occur. We are getting a mirror image, which means that there is virtually no time for us to see the object, just like with the candle. I never said light was unimportant, and I never said that it didn't travel but this traveling light is not what this account requires, nor does it violate the laws of physics. Again, you are thinking in terms of traveling light which is bringing the image to be decoded rather than light revealing the object to us. These are polar opposites yet no one here is understanding this even a little bit. They really think that this is analogous to a car that hasn't gotten to its destination yet we are acting as if it already has. It's really time for me to change topics, or I will have to leave. I'm tired of explaining the same thing over and over again with only laughter and jokes at my expense.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[My sheepdog was always nervous when I first came in the house until she identified me through smell. At the vets she heard my voice and started barking in recognition (and by the way these were astute observations that didn't need an empirical test to prove it) so that was another way she could identify me. But I never saw her identify me through sight alone.

lol




I asked this before but never got an answer. Daddy Dipshit wrote:

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight distance away cannot identify his master.

How may times did he conduct that experiment and what were the protocols? Cuz if he didn't actually conduct the experiment, then he was talking out of his ass, and the Prince of Poon never, ever talked out of his ass, right?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How does the lens bend light? It bends light because the light strikes the convex lens which causes it to bend.

See, this is a problem you have. You don't really know what "explanation" means. Essentially, you're saying "A lens bends light by bending light." That conveys no information to the reader and thus has exactly zero explanatory value. The same is true of your "We see in real time because of efferent vision" nonsense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, no, nice try though. Ratio is the quantitative relation between two amounts showing the number of times one value contains or is contained within the other.

That may be one definition of ratio, but I expressed another. It is the relationship between two things. Those things are the relationship between the object's size and brightness to the viewer. I am fine using the term ratio in this context.

If he can see the object (we're working this backwards) then the light has to be at the eye instantly (just like with the candle).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Great, but you still need to explain how the light gets to the eye in keeping with the known and immutable properties of light.

I did over a hundred times. Efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because you refuse to explain how it is possible for time to not be involved in a way that is compatible with reality.

How does the light from the newly ignited Sun get from the Sun to eye without traveling?

Oh my gosh, I am losing all hope to ever get through to you. I didn't say light doesn't travel but if you understand efferent vision you would see that it would take virtually no time for the light from the Sun to be at the eye which is exactly analogous to the light being at the eye when you light a candle. You think that distance plays a part here, so as the distance increases, the longer it takes for the light to reach us and land on the eye. THIS IS THE AFFERENT ACCOUNT IN A NUTSHELL YET YOU KEEP TRYING TO FIT THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT (A SQUARE) INTO THE AFFERENT ACCOUNT (A HOLE), AND IT WON'T WORK UNDERSTANDABLY.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Say there is a car in your garage that you say came from California. It is 12:00 noon EDT Sunday the 10th, 2014. The car left California at 9am PDT, Sunday the 10th, 2014. How can that be? The only known mechanism for cars to get from one place to another place is by traveling to that place, which takes time. So how can the car be in your garage at the same moment it is leaving California?

Explaining how a car got from California to your garage instantly is identical to explaining how light photons get to the eye or camera film at noon from the Sun which was ignited at noon. Saying that time is not involved is just moronic, because light follows the laws of physics, and time is definitely a factor in anything changing locations.

You just keep saying "The car is in the garage instantly because it is in the garage and time is not a factor" when you are being asked to explain how the car got to the garage from California instantaneously. Spacemonkeys letter scenario is the same thing. How did a letter from Japan arrive when there hasn't been time for a letter to travel from Japan?

But we are discussing vision, not cars. This change in direction between afferent to efferent changes the function of light when it comes to vision. We're not talking about physics and travel time. We all know the math between how long it takes for a car to arrive. We also know that a car cannot arrive before it arrives. There is no travel time in this account such that we are waiting for the photon to arrive. This is not an accurate analogy which I've said many times yet you keep bringing it up as if this proves Lessans wrong. If there is no time involved such that we wait 3 seconds to see this, 5 seconds to see that, 1 month to see this, and 1 year to see that, then we are not talking about the same phenomenon at all. You're on the wrong side of the highway, but you just don't see it.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How does the lens bend light? It bends light because the light strikes the convex lens which causes it to bend.

That is in no way an explanation. How does the lens bend light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because you refuse to explain how it is possible for time to not be involved in a way that is compatible with reality.

How does the light from the newly ignited Sun get from the Sun to eye without traveling?

It doesn't get anywhere. It's there if the Sun relative to the viewer is bright enough to be seen, as in the example of the candle. We aren't interpreting the light from the candle and decoding it into an image. We are seeing the candle directly because the candle is within optical range. The size of the candle relative to the viewer is no different than the size of the Sun relative to the viewer. This produces the mirror image I spoke of, where time does not apply because we are not interpreting anything from light itself. As far as light having to travel to Earth to strike the film or retina, this is unnecessary because the brightness from the Sun would put the eyes or film in optical range of the Sun. People are confusing the afferent with the efferent account and blaming me for their lack of understanding. No one can tell me I haven't tried.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That doesn't explain at all how magnification works in efferent vision, or how it is compatible with your statement "We are seeing the real object due to light's presence".

You are simply re-stating how it works with the standard afferent model (which is what optics is), and in the standard model we are not seeing the real object at all...we are seeing a virtual image made of light.

That's not what I meant. I meant that the properties of light are being utilized as we look out at the world. The light is the bridge between the internal and external world, so if the bridge (the light) is bending a certain way, we have to follow the bend. We can't cross the bridge without following the direction the bridge is taking us.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

This has everything to do with the price of tea in China. Direct eye contact between dogs can mean a threat, but it doesn't mean that this can be extended to facial recognition. This has not been proven.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So do you agree that we are not seeing the "real object" at all, and therefore retract your statement?

I am not retracting my statement just because light travels. We would be seeing the bug magnified due to the type of lens that the light is striking. You still have no conception of why traveling light does not bring us the image apart from the object, do you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not say the eyes don't contain afferent nerves. You're such a liar.

He said "The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ."

Originally Posted by LadyShea

thanks for proving my point.

What point? He said exactly what he meant. There are no similar afferent nerve endings that make direct contact. You are so determined to prove him wrong that you can't see what you're doing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I said, this is another area where you and Lessans fail to understand good scholarship, you think you can find and correct your own mistakes...how can you do that if you don't think you made a mistake?

Sure it would have been nice if Ceptimus was sitting next to him. This simple math problem was relatively unimportant and he couldn't proof read over and over again. We all know how easy it is to overlook a typo even if it's staring you in the face because you're too close to it. That would have prevented a few obvious typos that he made, but he didn't have a proofreader at the time. Still, this has nothing to do with the accuracy of his discoveries yet that's how you are trying to make it appear.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Trillions of babies is in the version I have

He did write that but it wasn't in his book. It was on a piece of type written paper that he was using as an advertisement. You cannot use a simple mistake in the number of babies born, which wasn't even part of his very astute observations or years of analysis, in an effort to discredit his discoveries. Since you cannot disprove his discoveries like you had hoped to, you're trying to throw him under the bus in other ways so people will be suspicious. He was able to make the necessary corrections when it came to his claims. These are mathematical relations that don't require people to give their approval or even to make the corrections that he was able to make himself during his years of analysis.

This
discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity.

In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We have no evidence that the wrong math answer was a typo rather than a mistake. Either way the answer in the book was the wrong one. If not for Ceptimus, it would have stayed wrong. Which proves my point yet again.

I guess you're going to have to trust me. My father would not have put a math problem in the book that he knew the answer to, and make that kind of mistake. He was using a manual typewriter and it is not beyond a reasonable doubt that this is exactly what happened. Your agenda to portray my father, a man you didn't know, in a negative light is not going to work LadyShea because none of your accusations has anything to do with the veracity of his 3 discoveries.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

OK, forget the controlled experiment part. Have you tested this claim in any way?

This claim was made from empirical observation. It cannot be that difficult to test this in a controlled manner. Unfortunately, confirmation bias is alive and well and the tests that were done are not conclusive yet they try to suggest that this matches their belief that dogs see like we do because the eyes are a sense organ. If they didn't try to match the results with their hypothesis, it would cause cognitive/dissonance, which is a bad position to be in.

[davidm]

I can't believe how appropriate peacegirl's avatar is. A goggle-eyed cretin with a Stepford wife grin, and now I just noticed that the cretin is saluting while that "Join the Revolution" shit blinks off and on. It's something so self-refernetial as this that makes me again wonder, as I do from time to time, whether peacegirl is actually the Internet's most successful troll, not believing a word of what she writes but stringing people along for more than a decade now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because when something is changed it is no longer the same.

Well obviously if the alternate account is different from the original account the phenomenon changes, but what's more important is that this change does not violate the laws of physics. If the phenomenon didn't change (seeing in real time), then there would be nothing to correct.