A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Lessans didn't have a fucking clue about any of this did he?

Lessans even got the efferent theory of vision wrong, he claimed that the light interacted with the eye instantly, but the theory, as described by Plato didn't say anything about instant vision, that was added by Lessans. As described in this article on page 58 thru 62,

History of Ophthalmology: Sub auspiciis Academiae Ophthalmologicae ... - Google Books

Plato believed that visual rays were emminated from the eyes and reflected back to the eyes, a process that would have taken some time. Later Aristotle described vision as a passive process, which would be in accord with the afferent theory of vision, the current model.

[LadyShea]

I dont understand how its possible because it isnt possible

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I dont understand how its possible because it isnt possible

Sure, it isn't possible if you don't understand how it's possible. That's why I have said all along that the only way to know if his claim is true is by determining if efferent vision is true. If it is, then it can be demonstrated how real time vision is true.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by GdB

And how does the light get there? What is the mechanism?

If you read Lessans' own account of vision (not recommended, as Lessans was an eye-bleed-inducingly poor writer), it's quite clear that he didn't think light had to make contact with the eye AT ALL for the eye to work. As long as the object one is looking at is large enough and luminous or illuminated, you'll see it.

In a childlike sort of way, peacegirl understands that an eye, anatomically speaking, is a light collector and thus can't do much of anything absent physical contact with light. She's trying to integrate that fact into "efferenct vision but failing spectacularly. She's completely unable to explain how the light illuminating an object in deep space can simultaneously be in physical contact with a human retina here on earth, so any discussion on the subject quickly turns to nonsense.

peacegirl: "Efferent vision is plausible and in no way contravenes established science."

Questioner: "It's only plausible if you can explain how the light illuminating an object is instantly in contact with the observer's eye. You admit that light takes time to travel, so how is that possible? What's the mechanism?

P: "Efferent vision."

Q: "Buh?"

P: "Efferent vision is the mechanism."

Q: "That has no explanatory value at all. It's like saying that internal combustion engines work because of the design of internal combustion engines."

P: "You just don't understand how it's possible for light to be at the eye instantly."

Q: "Yeah, and that's kinda the point of my asking you to explain the mechanism."

P: "Sorry. If you're so goddamn dumb that you don't understand it by now, I just can't help you."

When all else fails -- and, in peacegirl's case, all else invariably fails -- blame the listener, even though blame is the root of all evil.

The really lulzy part is that Lessans wrote that in the final analysis it didn't make a goddamn bit of difference how vision works. He didn't consider the issue important to his main thesis. However peacegirl's sense of meaning is premised exclusively that everything contained in her father's books is correct.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The really lulzy part is that Lessans wrote that in the final analysis it didn't make a goddamn bit of difference how vision works. He didn't consider the issue important to his main thesis.

IIRC, Lessans didn't say it didn't matter how vision works. Lessans says it doesn't matter if science got it wrong. Basically the same thing, only with that Lessans taint of arrogance we know and love.

[Stephen Maturin]

It comforts me knowing that the future of humankind is safely ensconced in the hands of this family of geniuses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

If you read Lessans' own account of vision (not recommended, as Lessans was an eye-bleed-inducingly poor writer), it's quite clear that he didn't think light had to make contact with the eye AT ALL for the eye to work. As long as the object one is looking at is large enough and luminous or illuminated, you'll see it.

In a childlike sort of way, peacegirl understands that an eye, anatomically speaking, is a light collector and thus can't do much of anything absent physical contact with light. She's trying to integrate that fact into "efferenct vision but failing spectacularly. She's completely unable to explain how the light illuminating an object in deep space can simultaneously be in physical contact with a human retina here on earth, so any discussion on the subject quickly turns to nonsense.

peacegirl: "Efferent vision is plausible and in no way contravenes established science."

Questioner: "It's only plausible if you can explain how the light illuminating an object is instantly in contact with the observer's eye. You admit that light takes time to travel, so how is that possible? What's the mechanism?

P: "Efferent vision."

Q: "Buh?"

P: "Efferent vision is the mechanism."

Q: "That has no explanatory value at all. It's like saying that internal combustion engines work because of the design of internal combustion engines."

P: "You just don't understand how it's possible for light to be at the eye instantly."

Q: "Yeah, and that's kinda the point of my asking you to explain the mechanism."

P: "Sorry. If you're so goddamn dumb that you don't understand it by now, I just can't help you."

When all else fails -- and, in peacegirl's case, all else invariably fails -- blame the listener, even though blame is the root of all evil.

The really lulzy part is that Lessans wrote that in the final analysis it didn't make a goddamn bit of difference how vision works. He didn't consider the issue important to his main thesis. However peacegirl's sense of meaning is premised exclusively that everything contained in her father's books is correct.

Yes, I believe every claim he made in his book was correct. I'm not blaming anyone if they don't understand what he wrote, but by the same token they can't blame him for making the claims he did based on astute observation. You don't even know what his explanation was, and how came to this conclusion Maturin. I have no idea what you mean when you say it didn't make a bit of difference how vision works. That is completely false because it makes a huge difference in how we relate to each other. Finally, he never said blame is the root of all evil, but blame does allow a person to shift responsibility. That's the irony. The very thing society is trying to accomplish (accountability) cannot be accomplished fully by holding people accountable through blame and punishment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

IIRC, Lessans didn't say it didn't matter how vision works. Lessans says it doesn't matter if science got it wrong. Basically the same thing, only with that Lessans taint of arrogance we know and love.

He was not arrogant at all. You're painting a false picture of who he was, which is disgusting.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was not arrogant at all. You're painting a false picture of who he was, which is disgusting.

We only know the man through his writing, and that book is filled with an arrogant, know-it-all tone that makes the factual incorrectness of the content even more amusing.

The actual quote:

Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, [...]

That tone doesn't even admit the possibility that he was wrong, so certain is he.

[specious_reasons]

I forgot how amazing Lessans' book is. The only way it could be more impressive is if peacegirl would have left it completely unedited, with the "molecules of light" left in.

It's a masterwork of awfulness.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sure, it isn't possible if you don't understand how it's possible. That's why I have said all along that the only way to know if his claim is true is by determining if efferent vision is true. If it is, then it can be demonstrated how real time vision is true.

If it's true, it's true. Yes, very explanatory, peacegirl. These questions are ascertaining whether it is possible at all, let alone true. So we are back to your claims

You said that light must travel to the eye for the pupils to interact with it, but it is not necessary for light to travel to the eye for the retina to interact with it. How is that possible?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can offer me a better way of expressing what I mean, then I'll stop using it, but if you can't, I will continue to use it because there isn't a better way.

It depends on what you do mean, because you have been inconsistent with that. Light travels. There are no images being brought by the light, just light traveling. Why do you need to talk about images at all?

If you wrote your sentence like this, would it not convey what you mean? If not, then your account is in contradiction of optics and light physics, which you claim it's not.

You're still thinking in terms of the afferent account that light is traveling through space/time which takes time to get [to the camera or eye]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It depends on what you do mean, because you have been inconsistent with that. Light travels. There are no images being brought by the light, just light traveling. Why do you need to talk about images at all?

If you wrote your sentence like this, would it not convey what you mean? If not, then your account is in contradiction of optics and light physics, which you claim it's not.

That's the whole point though. It is believed that only the partial spectrum is traveling over space/time, striking the eye, and being interpreted in the brain. This is not what's happening so I have to emphasize "the image" being brought (or the partial spectrum) or people won't understand what I'm talking about.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the whole point though. It is believed that only the partial spectrum is traveling over space/time, striking the eye, and being interpreted in the brain. This is not what's happening so I have to emphasize "the image" being brought (or the partial spectrum) or people won't understand what I'm talking about.

It is believed that light is traveling through spacetime, and some of it is absorbed by matter it encounters, some is reflected, some is transmitted. Some is absorbed by eyes when it strikes them. The brain creates an image based on where the light strikes the retina, the intensity, and the wavelength. Yes.

Partial spectrum is meaningless as you are using it. It's light. It doesn't change it's properties to become an "image" that is being brought or carried due to its comprising wavelengths. The brain creates colors based on the wavelenght, is all.

You are discussing light as if it has different properties than it is known to have.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it's true, it's true. Yes, very explanatory, peacegirl. These questions are ascertaining whether it is possible at all, let alone true. So we are back to your claims

You said that light must travel to the eye for the pupils to interact with it, but it is not necessary for light to travel to the eye for the retina to interact with it. How is that possible?

You skipped this question

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the whole point though. It is believed that only the partial spectrum is traveling over space/time, striking the eye, and being interpreted in the brain. This is not what's happening so I have to emphasize "the image" being brought (or the partial spectrum) or people won't understand what I'm talking about.

"It is believed" who believed this? And which part of the spectrum is traveling?
Could you answer these questions simply, please.

What is it that people do not understand?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it's true, it's true. Yes, very explanatory, peacegirl. These questions are ascertaining whether it is possible at all, let alone true. So we are back to your claims

You said that light must travel to the eye for the pupils to interact with it, but it is not necessary for light to travel to the eye for the retina to interact with it. How is that possible?

The pupils open and close to control the amount of light entering the eye, and thereby controls the brightness of the image. But if the pupils are open when we look at the newly ignited Sun, too much light would be at the retina which could damage the retina. I always thought that the eyes would try to protect themselves from damage. So how could the eyes protect themselves if the light is at the retina 8.5 minutes before the pupils can react to the light that is arriving? Shouldn't the pupils react to the same light that is striking the retina, at the same time?

[GdB]

In the meantime, you have still not explained what I asked for here, about the mechanism of instantaneous vision of bright objects. How does the information of a visible, very remote supernova gets at the retina instantaneous?

Don't forget the modal status of 'can/could have chosen otherwise' from my posting here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

We only know the man through his writing, and that book is filled with an arrogant, know-it-all tone that makes the factual incorrectness of the content even more amusing.

The actual quote:

That tone doesn't even admit the possibility that he was wrong, so certain is he.

You are assuming he's wrong which is what is allowing you to show such disrespect. If he is right, that comment makes absolute sense. Scientists easily could have gotten confused. And when he said it didn't make a different whether the eyes were or were not a sense organ, he meant it didn't make a difference in and of itself. It was the knowledge that was hidden behind this new understanding that matters. Discussing this with the people in here is futile.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Scientists easily could have gotten confused.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

In the meantime, you have still not explained what I asked for here, about the mechanism of instantaneous vision of bright objects. How does the information of a visible, very remote supernova gets at the retina instantaneous?

Don't forget the modal status of 'can/could have chosen otherwise' from my posting here.

Real time vision can only work when the object is not only bright enough but large enough for it to be seen. If you try to work this problem backwards by trying to understand how efferent vision would allow real time seeing to occur, it may help you to see that this claim is not so strange at all and does not violate the laws of physics. I hope to continue the conversation on determinism Friday, and finish the discussion on the eyes. It serves no purpose.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you try to work this problem backwards by trying to understand how efferent vision would allow real time seeing to occur, it may help you to see that this claim is not so strange at all and does not violate the laws of physics.

Of course it violates the laws of physics, as has been explained to you a million times.

Seeing and thereby getting information about an object in real time, faster than light can transmit that information, contradicts relativity, which is an established fact of nature. It doesn't matter how or why that real-time seeing takes place, it violates relativity and can be dismissed for that reason.

It is impossible for even a single particle of light to "already be at the retina" (with your strange choice of words). It is limited by the speed of light, per definition, and it is known precisely how that light is transmitted. It is known mathematically (the real meaning of that word) how it works, with incredibly precise equations (real equations), and there is no place in those equations for any light to be "already" at the retina or wherever. If you make claims like you do, you have to come up with your own laws of physics. Even if you were able to formulate them (mathematically, remember?) they would be crap. You can't just make shit up and expect it to have anything to do with reality.

[LadyShea]

Some supernova can be seen with the naked eye so they obviously meet Lessans criteria. So how do we see them instantly?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope to continue the conversation on determinism Friday, and finish the discussion on the eyes. It serves no purpose.

Of course the discussion on vision serves a purpose, it proves that Lessans was wrong about seeing, just as he was wrong about young people falling in love with another persons genitals, Just as he was wrong about the right of way system that only served to establish Lessans fantasy world of male supremacy. It demonstrates that he was wrong about these things, so he was probably wrong about his "Greater Satisfaction" idea as well. Little lie, big lie.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Real time vision can only work when the object is not only bright enough but large enough for it to be seen. If you try to work this problem backwards by trying to understand how efferent vision would allow real time seeing to occur, it may help you to see that this claim is not so strange at all and does not violate the laws of physics. I hope to continue the conversation on determinism Friday, and finish the discussion on the eyes. It serves no purpose.

Somebody before me already noticed that you only describe the conditions under which instantaneous vision of bright objects is possible. But you do not answer the question: what is the mechanism? You only give it a name, 'efferent vision'. But you do not describe how it works. Without explaining it to us it is clear that you don't know the mechanism. Also, you do not describe the kind of experiments that would distinguish between the established scientific explanations and your ideas about vision. Obviously you have no idea how such experiments would look like.

I assume you will not react. So we know that you have not the slightest idea.