A revolution in thought

[Kael]

As I have mentioned before, the fact that there is some intrinsic doubt in any scientific endeavor, simply from human fallibility, cannot be used to shoe-horn in ideas that are directly contradicted by what evidence we have. Which your father's ideas on sight most certainly are. Whatever doubts may linger about our current model, they lie in the finer points and processes, areas in which you are tremendously uninformed and have thus far shown no inclination to inform yourself on. Those doubts are not anywhere near large enough to park the great, bloated monstrosity of Lessans' musings in.

Much as we can say with all the certainty we would ever need that the phlogiston theory of combustion is untrue, we can also say, again with all the certainty we would ever need, that our eyes and brains see light, nothing more and nothing less, and that what we see is information decoded from light, translated and reassembled by our brains into something we can process. We can also say, with equal certainty, that we do NOT see anything as it happens, but only with a speed-of-light delay, since we cannot see an event or object until the light from it has had time to reach us. Were you standing on a distant world orbiting a distant star, and looked this way, you would NOT see our Sun and planets as they are now, but rather as they were when the light from them left on its long journey. We can say this just as certainly as we can say that phlogiston is NOT the cause of fire, nor required for something to burn, nor indeed a substance that actually exists at all!

With that same certainty, we can say that light is NOT "a condition of sight," but what we actually see in the first place! With that same certainty, we can say that Lessans' ideas of light, the eyes, our brains, and how they all work are WRONG.

If you had shown any sign of being interested in how things ACTUALLY work, rather than simply looking for a way to justify that which you already believe, unquestioningly and unequivocally, in your heart of hearts, I might spend more time attempting to show you how we can be that certain of all this. It is actually very interesting, both what we know now and the long, arduous path to that knowledge.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No you don't, or you wouldn't keep saying such insulting and breath-taxingly stupid things as: "[H]ow can there be books in the library on this topic except for the books that confirm what everyone already believes. It's completely circular.

No one who knows anything at all about how science is done could seriously say something so utterly idiotic. Your model of science is more or less exactly the opposite of how science is done..

Yes, I want to understand the model, but these books, no matter how accurate you think they are, will not give me the answers I need.

Translation: "They don't come to the conclusions that I want them to.

Only empirical tests will do that.

You say that is if these tests haven't been done. They have -- many, many times. But since they uniformly contradict your preferred interpretation of the world, you reject them outright.

You say it's beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is still a shred of doubt.

The key word there is "reasonable." If you want to throw reason out the door, you can insist that we see because invisible pixies travel to and fro and carry information to our brains.

But don't expect to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what's your point?

You've repeatedly stated that we would see the Sun immediately if it were turned on right now, rather than having to wait for the light to reach us. A supernova is a star being "turned on," in effect. By your own logic, then, we should be able to see it immediately, instead of having to wait for the light from the explosion to reach us. And a supernova explosion is certainly big-enough and bright-enough -- it's 100 billion times brighter than the Sun or more.

Incidentally, if our estimates of stellar distances were anywhere near as far off as you seem to think, the Earth wouldn't even exist, much less be capable of supporting life.


And would you please at least make the minimal effort of learning what the word "theory" actually means in the sciences? Your continual mis-use of the term -- even after being corrected on it -- just makes you look willfully stupid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am telling you that your method of arguing for Lessans' ideas is similar to Creationism and Moon Landing denialism and all the other crackpottery because you are arguing from belief, and not from evidence.

How many times do I have to say that this was a very astute observation. It did not come from a hunch which turned into a hypothesis, which then mapped out a new model of sight. It came from understanding the eyes in relationship to what we think we are seeing. I know this is not the proof you want, but it is a beginning. You don't throw it out just because you don't have the exact mapping of how this works. All you need to know for now is that it is a plausible [theory] and has huge implications regarding our relationship to the external world. If it turned out to be a viable [theory], wouldn't you want to consider it, or will you be ostriches with your head in the sand?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To be taken seriously, at all, you would need to point out specific flaws in the current theory and how you arrived at that conclusion, you would need to propose the alternate mechanism in a scientifically valid manner (hint: mere observation won't cut it).

I did state where I think there is a snag. The Lone Ranger says that this transduction from light to signals has been studied thoroughly, and it's virtually airtight. So no matter what I say will only bring ridicule. The only way that Lessans will ever be taken seriously is if more empirical testing is done, and I don't have the resources or the money to do this yet. I will need someone who has lots and lots of money (a celebrity that cares about our world) and would like to fund the research.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just saying "It might be wrong" could be applied to anything and everything, and is by some people. You accept that the Holocaust happened as historians have described, but the historians might be wrong! Maybe the deniers are correct! Maybe the heliocentric model of the solar system is wrong! Maybe the germ theory of disease is wrong!

I told you that Lessans did not pull this out of a hat. That's what you're implying. Of course there has to be a reason for why he believed this was true. So you can't just say that making a blanket statement without anything to back it up is pure nonsense.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody is going to re-examine any system- especially when the current model is both explanatory and predictive and all tests support it- based on the maybes and assertions of some salesman.

You want serious people to take you seriously? Then become an expert on the current theories, models, and supporting evidence for sight and find the flaws that need to be examined.

Do you hear the prejudice in your voice? Because he was a salesman is a very prejudice statement. You are making it look like he had no ability; that he was just a mediocre thinker with a big ego. I can't tell you how wrong you've been, and how you are influencing people in here to look at him the same way. Another cheap shot for LadyShea.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

does not give you a free pass to reject Lessans' theory of sight without a second thought. This would make you no different than a creationist because of your belief that science can do no wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who's the bullshitter now, peacegirl...you are once again projecting.

Science can and does make mistakes, and doesn't even claim to be perfect, however it is also self correcting and possible errors are found due to rigorous and repeated testing. I reject Lessans assertions based on their being nonsensical, untested, incomplete, and not even explained very well.

You are entitled to whatever you want to think, but you are premature in your judgment about him, his knowledge, and his incredible insight into human nature.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

As I have mentioned before, the fact that there is some intrinsic doubt in any scientific endeavor, simply from human fallibility, cannot be used to shoe-horn in ideas that are directly contradicted by what evidence we have.

I'm not expecting anyone to shoe-horn ideas that are contradictory to the so-called evidence. But I am asking people to not jump to conclusions just because his [theory] is not popular.

Originally Posted by Kael

Which your father's ideas on sight most certainly are. Whatever doubts may linger about our current model, they lie in the finer points and processes, areas in which you are tremendously uninformed and have thus far shown no inclination to inform yourself on. Those doubts are not anywhere near large enough to park the great, bloated monstrosity of Lessans' musings in.

When you say that whatever doubts may linger about our current model, they lie in the finer points and processes, you are excluding Lessans from the get go. You have no desire to consider that he could be right, because in your mind science has the answer; their conclusions are 100% right, and they don't have to look any further. Just the fact that you are saying the doubts in what science knows is small next to the "bloated monstrosity of Lessans' musings" doesn't give me much hope because you've already classified his knowledge as nonsensical.

Originally Posted by Kael

Much as we can say with all the certainty we would ever need that the phlogiston theory of combustion is untrue, we can also say, again with all the certainty we would ever need, that our eyes and brains see light, nothing more and nothing less, and that what we see is information decoded from light, translated and reassembled by our brains into something we can process. We can also say, with equal certainty, that we do NOT see anything as it happens, but only with a speed-of-light delay, since we cannot see an event or object until the light from it has had time to reach us. Were you standing on a distant world orbiting a distant star, and looked this way, you would NOT see our Sun and planets as they are now, but rather as they were when the light from them left on its long journey. We can say this just as certainly as we can say that phlogiston is NOT the cause of fire, nor required for something to burn, nor indeed a substance that actually exists at all!

If you believe that you are that certain you are right about how the eyes work, then there is no discussion. It will continue to be a Lessans' bashing to try to beat the truth into me. I think that's why everyone follows this thread: to see if I can be convinced that Lessans was wrong; not to investigate if Lessans could have been right. For if you can get me to change my mind, that would be a feather in your cap that you can convert other believers to a rational way of thinking. Well, it ain't happenin', not that I don't want to read about the present model of sight, but I don't believe they've got it all right. Only time will tell.

Originally Posted by Kael

With that same certainty, we can say that light is NOT "a condition of sight," but what we actually see in the first place! With that same certainty, we can say that Lessans' ideas of light, the eyes, our brains, and how they all work are WRONG.

If you had shown any sign of being interested in how things ACTUALLY work, rather than simply looking for a way to justify that which you already believe, unquestioningly and unequivocally, in your heart of hearts, I might spend more time attempting to show you how we can be that certain of all this. It is actually very interesting, both what we know now and the long, arduous path to that knowledge.

Your certainty does not allow any room for Lessans' ideas. I wish you would be slightly less certain, or at least open to another way of thinking on the subject. I don't want anyone to spend extra time with me on the present model of sight, because they will expect something back. They will expect me to give up my position without further testing, and I won't do that no matter how airtight their mapping appears, especially where the photoreceptors are transduced into chemical impulses.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

Which tests that YOU "believe need to be done," have not been done?

Details, please! Do tell!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

First of all, I would like more tests with dogs showing that, if there was no other sense experience, that they could identify their masters from sight alone. I don't think the tests were accurately done LadyShea. I know you feel differently, so we don't have to rehash this again. I am not sure what other tests could be devised at this point that would not be biased. If anyone has any ideas, please let me know. The entire aim of these empirical studies would be to determine if anything from the lightwaves themselves are seen as an image. It's sounds completely absurd (from someone who does not come from the same position) to believe that lightwaves, without the object or event reflecting that light (such as Columbus discovering America in real time), could be traveling far and wide for thousands of years and entering someone's brain where they see the past. It is no more absurd than the belief in the holy trinity, which many people are convinced of. Do you not see the comparison? Obviously not.

[thedoc]

It seems that the basis of this dissagreement about vision starts with Lessans idea that light does not convey information to the eye. If this were true, when a camera takes a picture there would be no image on the film or on the print. If one person took a photo it could be argued that they would remember what was photographed and project that image back on to the print. But if that print were looked at by someone else who had no prior knowledge of the picture, they would see a blank print, because their mind would have no way of knowing what the picture had been taken of. The question is simple, does the light convey information or not, and wavelengths is not relavant, as that is only one aspect of light, the intensity and the direction the light is moving are other factors that form the image and convey the information, in fact the direction the light is moving is what makes a lens able to focus light, and form an image on a surface.

A simple test would be to have one person take some photos, send the film to another person, who has no knowledge of what pictures were taken, and develope the film. They would either see an image on the print, or a blank piece of paper. In this case light is the only means for the vewier to see the image.

[thedoc]

FYI, the simple test above has been done millions of times, in the days of film photography, film would be dropped off at the processor and developed, the opperator would develop and process the photos without any knowledge of what pictures had been taken, but they can still check that the photos were properly printed by looking at the image on the print.

[thedoc]

The other fact that demonstrates that light conveys the information is the data from astronomy, where the distant object cannot be seen till the light has had time to arrive, though this is being contested. Another possable clue is that radio waves are just another wavelength of light that are not visible to the eye but travel at the same speed as visible light. During the space missions whether manned or unmanned the controllers needed to account for the time delay for the radio signals to reach the receiver and return. There was considerable delay with the mission of Voyager to the outer planets, I believe they missed the un-planet. Since radio signals are just another wavelength of light, information is either transmitted in the electromagnetic spectrum (which includes visible light and some other nasty stuff) or not.

[LadyShea]

There is a time delay communicating with the Mars rovers as well, as Wildernesse brought up way back in this thread

Moving safely from rock to rock or location to location is a major challenge because of the communication time delay between Earth and Mars, which is about 20 minutes on average. Unlike a remote controlled car, the drivers of rovers on Mars cannot instantly see what is happening to a rover at any given moment and they cannot send quick commands to prevent the rover from running into a rock or falling off of a cliff.

Mars Exploration Rover Mission: The Mission

peacegirl, do you suppose your dad was better informed than the NASA engineers who work/have worked on the Mars rover project?

[peacegirl]

It just goes to show how removed you are all from objective thinking. Thedoc is the only one to give a response? Come on, be a little bit objective. Doc answers like a robot. He has no understanding of the issues involved. According to thedoc, there has to be a change of thinking because it doesn't fit into his way of thinking. Therefore, if you buy into what he's saying, there is no discussion whatsoever because he is right according to his beliefs. Truly, isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Doesn't this sound like the gestapo to anyone? I know I will be condemned for saying this, but thedoc is so far removed from knowing the truth, that I had to put him on ignore. His conclusions are so misconstrued, that I can't even continue the conversation with him. That's how sick this thread has gotten. In the meantime, you totally reject the possibility that he could be right. That is not science. Nothing so far regarding afferent vision has been proven through any kind of technology. It's just a theory, that's all, yet Lone Ranger and others are acting like it's absolute proof. It's not absolute proof in any sense of the word, even though the supposed proof of transduction of photoreceptors to impulses appears airtight.

[LadyShea]

You sound no different than any other wacko or religious nut.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, could you respond to the posts as to whether light conveys information or not, or are you going to ignore the issue as well? Especially the part about photographs?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is a time delay communicating with the Mars rovers as well, as Wildernesse brought up way back in this thread

peacegirl, do you suppose your dad was better informed than the NASA engineers who work/have worked on the Mars rover project?

Why are you repeating the same old same old LadyShea? All of what you are repeating is is an extension of the established theory. Yet you, as someone who is searching for truth, aren't being objective at all. You buy into this THEORY without a second thought. I am totally flaberghasted by your lack of objectivity. I will read the link that you have posted, but it won't change a thing. It will only confirm science's theory. This is not being objective at all, but you won't see it because you are committed to the empirical studies that you believe prove what is not proven. Therefore, your loyalty to science will compel you to laugh at me, in the direction of greater satisfaction. That's okay. One day, most likely after we're dead and gone, Lessans WILL BE VINDICATED.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You sound no different than any other wacko or religious nut.

I know that's what you think, and the more we converse, the more you will dig in that I am a wacko. I cannot win here.

[The Lone Ranger]

Note that radar works because of the finite speed of light (radio waves, as mentioned, are light). We time how long it takes between when the light is emitted and when it is "seen" by the receiver to determine how far away the target is.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you repeating the same old same old LadyShea? All of what you are repeating is is an extension of the established theory. Yet you, as someone who is searching for truth, aren't being objective at all. You buy into this THEORY without a second thought. I am totally flaberghasted by your lack of objectivity. I will read the link that you have posted, but it won't change a thing. It will only confirm science's theory. This is not being objective at all, but you won't see it because you are committed to the empirical studies that you believe prove what is not proven. Therefore, your loyalty to science will compel you to laugh at me, in the direction of greater satisfaction. That's okay.

There is a demonstrable and measurable time delay when receiving data from, and sending instructions to, the remaining operational Mars rover. This isn't theoretical, it's happening right now, today.

One day, most likely after we're dead and gone, Lessans WILL BE VINDICATED.

How very objective and rational.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You sound no different than any other wacko or religious nut.

At this point LadyShea, you are just as much a believer as those you can't stand. You are showing your loyalty to your cronies, that's all, and I'm not interested in that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Note that radar works because of the finite speed of light (radio waves, as mentioned, are light). We time how long it takes between when the light is emitted and when it is "seen" by the receiver to determine how far away the target is.

Right, I get this, but this is not related to real time observation. This has to do with telescopes. Are you telling me that we are discussing the naked eye? Be honest.

[LadyShea]

What does your son the radiologist think of Lessans idea about efferent vision? He uses the properties of light in his daily work.

Also remember, we hadn't sent robots to Mars when Lessans was alive. The Voyager spacecraft had not yet made it to the outer-reaches of our solar system when he came up with his idea. They are perfect counterexamples to his assertion that observers on Rigel would see Earth in "real time".

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At this point LadyShea, you are just as much a believer as those you can't stand.

Where did I say I can't stand people?
And yes, I believe (accept to be true) the afferent model of sight because I have not been given any reason to question it. Your dad's assertions are not a very good reason to discount the evidence. If compelling evidence is produced that the afferent model of vision is incorrect, my belief would probably change due to the addition of contradictory data.

You don't have anything more to offer to the conversation except your bias toward your cronies, and I'm not interested in that.

I don't have cronies.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yet you, as someone who is searching for truth, aren't being objective at all. You buy into this THEORY without a second thought. I am totally flaberghasted by your lack of objectivity. I will read the link that you have posted, but it won't change a thing. It will only confirm science's theory. This is not being objective at all, but you won't see it because you are committed to the empirical studies that you believe prove what is not proven.

Lets see here, we have LadyShea who has read up on the current theory of vision, and Lessans book with his theory of vision, and has discussed both on this thread, but is not objective. Peacegirl, who refuses to learn about the current theory of vision, because it's "Just a Theory", can't explain Lessans ideas on vision, that she doesn't understand, possably has not read the book, but by implication is very objective, because she refuses to accept anything that opposes Lessans. This must be some strange new definition of 'objectivity' of which I and possably the rest of the world, was not aware. Another term redefined by Lessans? Add that to the long list of words that, according to Lessans, the world had totally screwed up.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One day, most likely after we're dead and gone, Lessans WILL BE VINDICATED.

No, by then it will be to late, because the world is going to end very soon. Darn it, no 'Golden Age' and free sex all over the place.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, I get this, but this is not related to real time observation. This has to do with telescopes. Are you telling me that we are discussing the naked eye? Be honest.

Fine, we'll limit ourselves to examples in which the receiver happens to be the human eye. These also demonstrate a delay between when something happens and when we see it -- a delay that corresponds exactly with the time delay imposed by the finite speed of light.

You've been given quite a few examples in this thread.

[LadyShea]

You've been given quite a few examples in this thread.

Such as the pictures/video from the Mars rovers and Voyager spacecraft.

When it (Voyager) was 7,555,000,000 miles from Earth, the round trip time for a signal to be sent and acknowledged in return was 22 hours 18 minutes