A revolution in thought

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not a strawman. There's no other way to explain it. Obviously, images are not being carried as if the light is a basket and images are in it. The confusion arises because it is believed that these light waves contain the information about said object or image.

Lessans' [theory] is that although an object absorbs and reflects light, that same light is a condition of sight [only] because it allows the eyes to see said object (it's the same light except it doesn't cause sight, it is a condition of sight, according to Lessans) without the wavelength bouncing off the object, traveling to the eye, and being interpreted by the brain through signals coming from the optic nerve.

Originally Posted by Kael

I'll just leave this here.

...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

I'll just leave this here.

We do need light to see. Light gives us information by allowing us to see the object [through the retina]. The only difference is the the object itself IS the information being photographed DUE TO THE LIGHT (without the light, the object or image cannot be seen), not the signals being decoded in the lightwaves themselves.

How can you say that we need light to see if we don't need light to see? Do you actually think that is what Lessans is saying? That is a tautology and it doesn't even make sense.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you say that we need light to see if we don't need light to see? Do you actually think that is what Lessans is saying? That is a tautology and it doesn't even make sense.

(Emphasis added)

That word doesn't mean what you think it does ...

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We do need light to see. Light gives us information by allowing us to see the object [through the retina].

If light carries no information, why do we need it to see? If we can see objects directly, why do we need light to be there?

the the object itself IS the information being photographed

I wonder if you realize how absurd this phrase sounds to anyone with even a basic understanding of what a photograph is.

How can you say that we need light to see if we don't need light to see? Do you actually think that is what Lessans is saying? That is a tautology and it doesn't even make sense.

Precisely. What else could he be saying when he says that light is a condition of sight but not the actual mechanism or medium? He is saying we do not need light so see, but without light we cannot see. What does light do, in this model? How does it facilitate sight? What sort of 'condition' is it providing that would not be there without it?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We do need light to see. Light gives us information by allowing us to see the object [through the retina].

HOW?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...DUE TO THE LIGHT...

Eh? Due to the light? Yeah, we know it's due to the light under the correct and well-understood model that you and Nutball reject.

What role does the light play in your "model," that we see, "due to the light"?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light contains no informatin.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light gives us information.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

(Emphasis added)

That word doesn't mean what you think it does ...

Apparently there are very few english words that mean what she thinks they mean.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

(Emphasis added)

That word doesn't mean what you think it does ...

Maybe I didn't use the word right, but it was the closest word I could think of that moment. How's this: I can say that we need light to see, is if we need light to see.

Tautology

1. needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.”

2. an instance of such repetition.

3. Logic.a. a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A.”

b. an instance of such a form, as “This candidate will win or will not win.”
RHD

3. 1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words;redundancy.

2. An instance of such repetition.

4. Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simplerstatements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement. Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow. AHD4

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

David, I have said numerous times that light allows us to see an object or image. The object or image gives us the information because of light's reflection. Light itself contains no information that can be processed in the brain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We do need light to see. Light gives us information by allowing us to see the object [through the retina].

Originally Posted by Kael

If light carries no information, why do we need it to see? If we can see objects directly, why do we need light to be there?

Because light is a necessary condition of sight. Don't ask me why it's this way. That's like asking me why grass grows.

the the object itself IS the information being photographed

Originally Posted by Kael

I wonder if you realize how absurd this phrase sounds to anyone with even a basic understanding of what a photograph is.

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch
and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a
negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this.

How can you say that we need light to see if we don't need light to see? Do you actually think that is what Lessans is saying? That is a tautology and it doesn't even make sense.

Originally Posted by Kael

Precisely. What else could he be saying when he says that light is a condition of sight but not the actual mechanism or medium? He is saying we do not need light so see, but without light we cannot see. What does light do, in this model? How does it facilitate sight? What sort of 'condition' is it providing that would not be there without it?

Light is the mechanism (or condition) that is allowing us to see. Light is providing us the ability to see the object or image because of the way light works; its properties. Without absorption, reflection, refraction, or deflection of light, we could not any image or any object. But the key here is that without the object that the light is shining upon, we could not see anything because there is no information being sent to the brain to be decoded.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I didn't use the word right, but it was the closest word I could think of that moment. How's this: I can say that we need light to see, is if we need light to see.

We need light to see, if we neded light to see?

Wow! Heavy!

As Kael and I have repeatedly asked you, HOW AND WHY do we need light to see, under your father's so-called "model"? Oh, and again: HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to see the sun instantaneously, if, as you admit, it takes the light from the sun eight and a half minutes to reach us?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, I have said numerous times that light allows us to see an object or image.

EXPLAIN HOW.

The object or image gives us the information because of light's reflection. Light itself contains no information that can be processed in the brain.

The object or image gives us the information because of the light's reflection! So, you are saying we see the reflected light of the moon? I thought you just got through saying the light doesn't reach the optic nerve! And, if we see the reflected light of the moon, why would we see the sun INSTANTANEOUSLY but not the reflected moonlight until 8.5 minutes later, if it is, as you admit (and as is obviously true) the same light?

Oh, and your father said we would see the moon instantaenously. Huh? Wuh? Are you disagreeing with daddy-o, now?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because light is a necessary condition of sight. Don't ask me why it's this way. That's like asking me why grass grows.

In other words, in Peacegirl Land, "Light is a condition of sight" is all that we need to know! If a five-year-old child asked you the obvious question, "WHY is it a condition of sight?" you would have no answer! And yet we here in Reality World would have a detailed answer! See the Lone Ranger's essay you refuse to read!

It's like asking you why grass grows? Are you seriously saying you don't know why grass fucking grows?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch
and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a
negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this.

Oh, look! She's quoting from the Holy Book again! Do you really think such meaningless word salad, such utter gibberish, is going to satisfy a single person here, or anyone living in the real world?

Look, she put the word photograph in bold! It's an argument from bold-faced type, apparently. What does it mean? How, and why, does the brain "photograph" anything, and what is the relation of light to these photographs?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

?? - I'm getting thirsty.

??

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is the mechanism (or condition) that is allowing us to see.

HOW?

Remember, the Great Man REJECTS the (correct) model of light that The Lone Ranger describes in the essay you won't read. So what is the Great Man's physical model of how and why light allows us to see, if not the one that we already know?

Light is providing us the ability to see the object or image because of the way light works; its properties. Without absorption, reflection, refraction, or deflection of light, we could not any image or any object.

So we see reflected light! That makes vision afferent! But The Great Man rejects this! So you have contradicted him, and yourself.

But the key here is that without the object that the light is shining upon, we could not see anything because there is no information being sent to the brain to be decoded.

So, if an object is not present for light to shine upon, I can't see that object?

No shit, Sherlock! And why is that? Because if the object is not present, the reflected light from that object will not be sent back through my pupil to the optic nerve to the brain, where the image is interpreted. However, the reflected light from other objects WILL be sent to the brain via that method; i.e., the known method of sight that the Great Man rejects.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's not a copout. She's reminding you that (as has been repeatedly explained to you) the definition of an afferent nerve is that it travels from (that is, it exits from) an organ and goes to the Central Nervous System.

I just didn't see anything about that in the link she sent me to. I must have missed it.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

For people to get so angry is a red flag that they are protecting their own views (with empirical evidence to back them up).
Gee, project much?

I think my reaction was pretty tame considering what I've been through in here. Imagine that for months on end a person gets badgered and badgered and badgered and then finally when the person gives an angry response, people say that the anger is a red flag that this person is protecting his own views, or they say this person has a persecution complex, or whatever. Doesn't that sound a like a double standard? Actually, they did an empirical study that showed cursing causes one to have more endurance when in pain.

Experiment: Two people were told to put their hands in freezing cold water for an extended period of time. Only one was allowed to curse. The one who was not allowed to curse had to take her hand out of the water much sooner than the person who was allowed to. Interesting.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think my reaction was pretty tame considering what I've been through in here. Imagine that for months on end a person gets badgered and badgered and badgered and then finally when the person gives an angry response, people say that the anger is a red flag that this person is protecting his own views, or they say this person has a persecution complex, or whatever. Doesn't that sound a little off the mark?

The most insulting person on this thread is, and always has been, you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch
and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a
negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this.

I remember as a kid we had an old box camera and would develope our own film in the kitchen sink, now everyone I know has digital cameras. What kind of camera does the brain use to take these pictures, and have we mentally progressed to the digital age?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I must have missed it.

Is that an understatement or what?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is the mechanism (or condition) that is allowing us to see.

HOW?

Remember, the Great Man REJECTS the (correct) model of light that The Lone Ranger describes in the essay you won't read. So what is the Great Man's physical model of how and why light allows us to see, if not the one that we already know?

Light is providing us the ability to see the object or image because of the way light works; its properties. Without absorption, reflection, refraction, or deflection of light, we could not any image or any object.

Originally Posted by davidm

So we see reflected light! That makes vision afferent! But The Great Man rejects this! So you have contradicted him, and yourself.

I did not contradict myself. We see the object because of light's reflection. We don't see the reflected light. Why can't you get this David, and if you are so sure you are right, then why are you badgering me? Because you are afraid I might ruin science, or become a Holocaust denier, or tell people that global warming is not real? Is that why you feel justified in calling me names every chance you can get?

But the key here is that without the object that the light is shining upon, we could not see anything because there is no information being sent to the brain to be decoded.

Originally Posted by davidm

So, if an object is not present for light to shine upon, I can't see that object?

No shit, Sherlock! And why is that? Because if the object is not present, the reflected light from that object will not be sent back through my pupil to the optic nerve to the brain, where the image is interpreted. However, the reflected light from other objects WILL be sent to the brain via that method; i.e., the known method of sight that the Great Man rejects.

That's true, he rejects it. So are you going to go crazy screaming and yelling and freaking out because I differ in my view of what's going on?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Experiment: Two people were told to put their hands in freezing cold water for an extended period of time. Only one was allowed to curse. The one who was not allowed to curse had to take her hand out of the water much sooner than the person who was allowed to. Interesting
I know I'm off topic but just wanted to offer this little snippet of information.

Damn little, and 2 people are not a valid sample.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, look! She's quoting from the Holy Book again! Do you really think such meaningless word salad, such utter gibberish, is going to satisfy a single person here, or anyone living in the real world?

Look, she put the word photograph in bold! It's an argument from bold-faced type, apparently. What does it mean? How, and why, does the brain "photograph" anything, and what is the relation of light to these photographs?

Why are you getting so upset just because there is not a clear explanation as to how something occurs? How something occurs comes later down the road. TO REPEAT: Just because the how isn't answered, doesn't mean the observation is wrong. The more important issue is whether the observation is right, and in this case I believe it is.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because light is a necessary condition of sight. Don't ask me why it's this way. That's like asking me why grass grows.

But we know why grass grows. Is that really the analogy you want to go with? I mean, it definitely fits your general behavior and the beliefs you profess, to imply that grass growing is some mystery of the universe that must simply be accepted as true, but it doesn't help your case very much...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch
and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a
negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this.

This doesn't mean anything. The words 'photograph,' 'develop,' and 'negative' cannot be applied to the way the brain stores visual information, save as loose analogies of the sort one would use with young children. The properties of a photograph or a negative, and the process by which the latter is developed into the former, do not apply to the brain. This whole section of the book is Lessans rambling about how the brain is like a camera, or sometimes a projector, and stores negatives (of relationships instead of actual pictures, no less), taking it far more literally than is actually applicable.

The really funny part is, as I have pointed out to you, that the point this part of the book tries to push forward survives fully intact without all the baggage about photographs and efferent vision and light not carrying information etc etc etc. They are completely unrelated to the underlying notions about false ideals of beauty and ugliness and the way thoughts and impressions are shaped by language.