|
|
08-10-2014, 02:24 AM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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
|
08-10-2014, 02:26 AM
|
|
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:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You have to understand the efferent account. The light is not bringing us anything. We are using the light to see. Magnification is consistent with this account because optics is consistent with this account. But time is not a factor because, once again, we're not waiting for the light to arrive to get the information. We are seeing the real object due to light's presence. Light is a condition of sight; it is not a cause of sight.
|
The actual bug and the magnified image of the bug are different sizes. If we were seeing the actual bug and the light was merely revealing it wouldn't we be seeing it in its actual size?
|
No Angakuk because optics works the same way. We are seeing through the light, and if the lens is convex which bends the light, the light would magnify the bug.
|
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.
|
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?
|
08-10-2014, 08:19 AM
|
|
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I know that if my child missed me and someone showed him a picture of me, he would react. I don't even mean a big reaction, but there would definitely be a reaction.
|
How do you know this? Have you conducted controlled experiments to test this claim?
|
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?
__________________
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.
|
08-10-2014, 08:20 AM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
__________________
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.
|
08-10-2014, 11:35 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
You keep insisting that he made mistakes (as if you know ) when I don't believe he did.
|
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."
|
08-10-2014, 11:41 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
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.
|
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?
|
08-10-2014, 12:02 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
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.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
08-10-2014, 12:51 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
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.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
08-10-2014, 12:54 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:
You keep insisting that he made mistakes (as if you know ) when I don't believe he did.
|
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."
|
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.
|
08-10-2014, 01:08 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
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
|
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 undeniable 1 manner that the statements were not erroneous.
1 Which translates to "undeniable, undeniable and undeniable" in English.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
08-10-2014, 01:32 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No Artemis, that is the afferent account, not the efferent. This is not about light reaching the eye before it gets there. It's already there if we can see the object. That does not mean light is not traveling. It only means that the light would be at the eye IF AND ONLY IF we can see the object first, because then the requirements will have been met which are antithetical to the afferent position, which is why people aren't getting it and are accusing Lessans of violating the laws of physics.
|
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?
Quote:
The speed of light does not affect vision because this would mean time is involved.
|
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.
|
08-10-2014, 01:35 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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?
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
08-10-2014, 01:42 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
08-10-2014, 01:43 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
the size and luminosity of the object relative to the lens (in the efferent account) that make all the difference.
|
Is there an actual ratio involved? What is it?
|
It depends how you define ratio. The definition of a ratio is the relationship between two things (which is one of the standard definitions) and in this case it is the size and brightness of the object in relation to the viewer.
|
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.
Quote:
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).
|
Quote:
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.
|
08-10-2014, 01:47 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Just remember that if we see the object, the light is already at the eye.
|
And that right there is where your account is incompatible with physics, optics, and reality. Unless you can explain how the light gets to the eye faster than it could possibly travel to the eye, you are talking about magic
ETA: If we see things instantly as per Lessans
|
Light is always traveling LadyShea, but the efferent account is what changes this phenomenon. I'm not going over this for the 100th time. It's your lack of ability to grasp why we would see the Sun instantly just like the candle because we are no longer looking at time since we're not waiting for the arrival of light to bring the information. We are able to see the real thing in real time as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which is proportional to the viewer. I don't care if you believe this is magic. .
|
Its your lack of ability to explain how this is possible within the known laws of physics. You can't explain it at all, so how could I possibly "grasp" something that is unexplained and seemingly impossible?
You need to figure out how it works, rather than merely asserting that it does work without any evidence or mechanism.
Quote:
We are not talking about light getting to the eye faster than it could travel to the eye. That's nuts altogether
|
Yes it is nuts, that's why we keep questioning your claims that light is at the eye, and on camera film, instantly without needing the time to travel there. Your claim is nuts.
|
Unbelievable. You all have no conception of how this works because you refuse to understand that time is not involved.
|
Because you refuse to explain how it is possible for time to not be involved in a way that is compatible with reality.
Quote:
If I see the object, the light is absolutely at the eye. No one is saying light is at the eye before light gets there.
|
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.
|
08-10-2014, 01:52 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 08-10-2014 at 05:10 PM.
|
08-10-2014, 02:59 PM
|
|
Phallic Philanthropist
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mobile
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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?
__________________
Why am I naked and sticky?... Did I miss something fun?
|
08-10-2014, 03:27 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Just remember that if we see the object, the light is already at the eye.
|
And that right there is where your account is incompatible with physics, optics, and reality. Unless you can explain how the light gets to the eye faster than it could possibly travel to the eye, you are talking about magic
ETA: If we see things instantly as per Lessans
|
Light is always traveling LadyShea, but the efferent account is what changes this phenomenon. I'm not going over this for the 100th time. It's your lack of ability to grasp why we would see the Sun instantly just like the candle because we are no longer looking at time since we're not waiting for the arrival of light to bring the information. We are able to see the real thing in real time as long as it meets the requirements of brightness and size, which is proportional to the viewer. I don't care if you believe this is magic. .
|
Its your lack of ability to explain how this is possible within the known laws of physics. You can't explain it at all, so how could I possibly "grasp" something that is unexplained and seemingly impossible?
You need to figure out how it works, rather than merely asserting that it does work without any evidence or mechanism.
Quote:
We are not talking about light getting to the eye faster than it could travel to the eye. That's nuts altogether
|
Yes it is nuts, that's why we keep questioning your claims that light is at the eye, and on camera film, instantly without needing the time to travel there. Your claim is nuts.
|
Unbelievable. You all have no conception of how this works because you refuse to understand that time is not involved.
|
Because you refuse to explain how it is possible for time to not be involved in a way that is compatible with reality.
Quote:
If I see the object, the light is absolutely at the eye. No one is saying light is at the eye before light gets there.
|
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.
|
08-10-2014, 03:35 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You have to understand the efferent account. The light is not bringing us anything. We are using the light to see. Magnification is consistent with this account because optics is consistent with this account. But time is not a factor because, once again, we're not waiting for the light to arrive to get the information. We are seeing the real object due to light's presence. Light is a condition of sight; it is not a cause of sight.
|
The actual bug and the magnified image of the bug are different sizes. If we were seeing the actual bug and the light was merely revealing it wouldn't we be seeing it in its actual size?
|
No Angakuk because optics works the same way. We are seeing through the light, and if the lens is convex which bends the light, the light would magnify the bug.
|
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 08-10-2014 at 05:11 PM.
|
08-10-2014, 03:40 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Here's another one
Quote:
So far the specialized skill for recognizing facial features holistically has been assumed to be a quality that only humans and possibly primates possess. Although it’s well known, that faces and eye contact play an important role in the communication between dogs and humans, this was the first study, where facial recognition of dogs was investigated with eye movement tracking.
The results indicate that dogs were able to perceive faces in the images. Dogs looked at images of dogs longer than images of humans, regardless of the familiarity of the faces presented in the images. This corresponds to a previous study by Professor Vainio's research group, where it was found that dogs prefer viewing conspecific faces over human faces.
Dogs fixed their gaze more often on familiar faces and eyes rather than strange ones, i.e. dogs scanned familiar faces more thoroughly.
In addition, part of the images was presented in inverted forms i.e. upside-down. The inverted faces were presented because their physical properties correspond to normal upright facial images e.g. same colors, contrasts, shapes. It's known that the human brain process upside-down images in a different way than normal facial images. Thus far, it had not been studied how dogs gaze at inverted or familiar faces. Dogs viewed upright faces as long as inverted faces, but they gazed more at the eye area of upright faces, just like humans.
|
This eye tracking is used in human research too. It removes the need for the subject to perform an action to indicate things.
Even Mercola picked up on this one
Quote:
For social animals that live in groups as humans and dogs do, it's important to be able to tell one individual in the group from another through facial recognition. But until recently, the aptitude for recognizing facial features was presumed to be a quality that only humans and possibly primates possess.
As it turns out, this highly developed skill is one we also share with our canine companions, which makes sense, since it's an established fact that faces and eye contact play an important role in human-dog communication.
|
|
Direct eye contact between two dogs can be a threat.
|
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.
|
08-10-2014, 03:45 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You have to understand the efferent account. The light is not bringing us anything. We are using the light to see. Magnification is consistent with this account because optics is consistent with this account. But time is not a factor because, once again, we're not waiting for the light to arrive to get the information. We are seeing the real object due to light's presence. Light is a condition of sight; it is not a cause of sight.
|
The actual bug and the magnified image of the bug are different sizes. If we were seeing the actual bug and the light was merely revealing it wouldn't we be seeing it in its actual size?
|
No Angakuk because optics works the same way. We are seeing through the light, and if the lens is convex which bends the light, the light would magnify the bug.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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?
|
08-10-2014, 03:56 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
You keep insisting that he made mistakes (as if you know ) when I don't believe he did.
|
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."
|
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 08-10-2014 at 10:23 PM.
|
08-10-2014, 04:14 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I know that if my child missed me and someone showed him a picture of me, he would react. I don't even mean a big reaction, but there would definitely be a reaction.
|
How do you know this? Have you conducted controlled experiments to test this claim?
|
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?
|
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.
|
08-10-2014, 04:17 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
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.
|
08-10-2014, 04:17 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
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.
|
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 08-10-2014 at 05:13 PM.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 34 (0 members and 34 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 10:20 PM.
|
|
|
|