A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think there is confusion here. Maybe Lessans was not clear on this. I can accept that. Light and matter are different. It takes time for light to arrive, that is true. The problem is whether we see, through light, the object if it meets the requirements of efferent vision.

Originally Posted by GdB

You defended that we see instantaneously. You defended that photo cameras do too. So if two photo cameras make pictures of the same event, then they see it at the same time, namely exactly the time that the event occurred. TLR's pictures of the impact of Shoemaker-Levy on Jupiter show that this is not the case. So vision is not instantaneous. You are wrong.

If cameras are detecting light, distance and time will have an effect. My camera would detect light as it arrives 8 minutes after the Sun is turned on at noon, but I would be able to take a picture of the Sun instantly before the light from the Sun gets here. Lessans never discussed cameras, only the eyes and how they work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You all seem to ignore this very important observation, which is the reason he even came to this conclusion. Can you give him a little slack here before coming to your absolute conclusions that he was wrong?

Originally Posted by GdB

No, because the verdict is already out for many years. We see because light, travelling with 300,000 km/s, reaches our retina.

Lessans never disputed that light travels at a finite speed. What he disputed was that the light is bringing the information to the eye to be interpreted. I still stand by that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many things that were once thought to be true were exposed later on.

Originally Posted by GdB

Yes, but not in complete contradiction with what people already know. Stating that efferent vision does not contradict established science does not mean it doesn't.

It only contradicts the belief that light is being interpreted in the brain as an image. This claim has no bearing on our latest technologies and what scientists already know.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no investment in this other than sharing what Lessans observed. The least you could do is take it seriously, which you're not doing because you have already made up your mind that he had to be wrong.

Originally Posted by GdB

Not that he has to be wrong: he is wrong. Your understanding of science, its contents and its way of progressing, is so bad, that you do not see this.

I understand that theory has been so thoroughly tested, according to scientists, that any opposition to it is immediately debunked.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You were not here when I addressed Spacemonkey's questions.

Originally Posted by GdB

Unless you give a link to these answers, I will consider this as lying.

Half of the discussion was addressed to Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by GdB

But he is still waiting for answers on your questions. Point to your posting(s) where you addressed his questions. If you can't, or won't, I know you are a liar.

His way of thinking is that if light travels and it takes time to get to Earth, then we can't see instantly if the photons have not arrived where our retina is located. I have said that the photons are at the retina if the conditions of efferent vision are met. This would not make sense if you're thinking in terms of the afferent account of vision, which Spacemonkey is doing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is insane. My father was the kindest caring man you would ever want to meet. He wasn't a perfect human being, but he did have the intellectual capacity to make this discovery. He never laid a hand on me.

Originally Posted by GdB

Don't forget: it was you who referred to sexual abuse. But it's ok, I can let this rest. It is just funny that you came with it, where Stephen Maturin only suggested that you were neglected by your father.

Early on in this thread Stephen Maturin accused my father of terrible things. It was disgusting. I was not the one who referred to sexual abuse.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is this how you want to be remembered? As someone who spent her spare time going online just to insult people? Would you like your grandchildren to read this?

I hope my grandchildren read this one day. I have nothing to hide. They will appreciate what I went through.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Already did. Just read it.

I read the study. They said dogs can identify the sound of a voice and a facial expression, especially of the same species. They also said they don't know if the dog understands what the connection means, or whether it's just an association. If dogs can do this (and their test is statistically significant), that would be one of those times that an older theory is debunked. In reference to your last question: Do they have a word for "happy" that they project? Possibly, if they are trained to identify a smile as happy versus a sad or angry face. We would then know they are able to make this sort of word/object connection. Dogs have been known to identify objects through words. Some dogs have a pretty big vocabulary.

[Vivisectus]

Dogs have a big vocabulary, but they are just terrible at names u guess ��

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, with all due respect, you have no understanding of this discovery at all so it is not surprising that you will say the things you say. Your words have no validity whatsoever. That doesn't mean I don't like you. I still do.

The fuck does this have to do with what I asked?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're such a jerk and no matter how you amp this up, you will still be the same jerk you have always been from day one.

Why would you post just to insult someone?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His way of thinking is that if light travels and it takes time to get to Earth, then we can't see instantly if the photons have not arrived where our retina is located. I have said that the photons are at the retina if the conditions of efferent vision are met. This would not make sense if you're thinking in terms of the afferent account of vision, which Spacemonkey is doing.

I am not thinking in terms of the afferent version, but rather ASKING YOU - in terms of your efferent version - about these photons you say are at the film or retina before they have had time to travel there. Where did they come from, and how did they get there? Your account makes no sense if you cannot answer this, and you know it. And you certainly haven't explained why you just lied about having earlier answered my questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope my grandchildren read this one day. I have nothing to hide. They will appreciate what I went through.

Do you think they will be impressed to see you refuse to answer questions, and post only to insult people?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said that the photons are at the retina if the conditions of efferent vision are met.

This part of YOUR account is what these questions are asking you about. They are not based on the afferent account, and do not make any afferent assumptions. Please answer them from the efferent perspective based only on your own account.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film or retina 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 or retina 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 film/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/retina at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If cameras are detecting light, distance and time will have an effect. My camera would detect light as it arrives 8 minutes after the Sun is turned on at noon, but I would be able to take a picture of the Sun instantly before the light from the Sun gets here. Lessans never discussed cameras, only the eyes and how they work.

Take a picture? Without light? You said before that the light would instantly appear at the film. You are constantly contradicting yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It only contradicts the belief that light is being interpreted in the brain as an image. This claim has no bearing on our latest technologies and what scientists already know.

Scientists already know that light is being interpreted in the brain as an image. You're disputing this, you're saying that eyes aren't sense organs but windows. This is absolutely idiotic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His way of thinking is that if light travels and it takes time to get to Earth, then we can't see instantly if the photons have not arrived where our retina is located. I have said that the photons are at the retina if the conditions of efferent vision are met. This would not make sense if you're thinking in terms of the afferent account of vision, which Spacemonkey is doing.

This doesn't make any sense, period. And it isn't what your Dad wrote. It's something you made up.

[Vivisectus]

Peacegirl, as was explained, cameras work with light alone. All they dfo is record the color and intensity of the light that hits the sensor.

So wethert sight is instant or not, photography certainly cannot be.

How do you explain that they show the same things even when we photograph and look at objects that are light years awasy?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would then know they are able to make this sort of word/object connection. Dogs have been known to identify objects through words. Some dogs have a pretty big vocabulary.

Lessans said "all dogs" now you are saying "some dogs", you are contradicting your fathers holy text, that's Blasphemy.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

When I say there's no magic, I only mean there's no technical magic: if you want to draw a large following then you do need some personal magic that allows your writing to appeal to a large audience and keep that audience coming back for more.

You mean like she has done in this thread?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Early on in this thread Stephen Maturin accused my father of terrible things. It was disgusting. I was not the one who referred to sexual abuse.

I've quipped that your father was extraordinarily horny and wanted to bang circus freaks, but that's a far cry from accusing someone of fucking his own children. He was a shithead, not a monster.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You mean like she has done in this thread?

you seem to think that she has not been more effective than your preaching?

I'm reminded of a story.

At the pearly gates there was a line of individuals to get into heaven. In this line was a preacher and just ahead of him was a cab driver. When it was the cab drivers turn he loudly announced who he was and what he did. whereupon St. Peter gave him a silk gown, a shinny gold crown and a beautiful staff, and said "Please enter in my son". The pastor was next and he, just as loudly announced who he was and what he did, whereupon St. Peter shrugged and gave him a too short scratchy wool gown, a rusty halo and an ugly, crooked wooden staff, and said "I guess you can go in". When the preacher heard this he asked why was the cab driver given the good stuff and he got what looked like hand-me-downs? St. Peter looked at him and said, "Up here we go by results, while you preached, people slept, while he drove, people prayed."

[Angakuk]

I think you have mistaken my meaning. I'd say she has been plenty effective. She's has acquired an audience hasn't she?

As for the preaching comment, you are necessarily speaking from ignorance as you can have no way of knowing how effective it has or has not been. Perhaps you meant that to be taken as an "astute observation" on your part. If so, I can only say that if we have learned nothing else in this thread we have at least learned the value of those.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If cameras are detecting light, distance and time will have an effect. My camera would detect light as it arrives 8 minutes after the Sun is turned on at noon, but I would be able to take a picture of the Sun instantly before the light from the Sun gets here. Lessans never discussed cameras, only the eyes and how they work.

Stop! You are not reacting on the argument: you say that vision is instantaneous. You say that cameras 'see' the same way as we do. So cameras also detect events instantaneous, independent of the distance to the event. This contradicts the pictures TLR presented to you.

If this is not true, then you must assume the following scenario to be true:

On a planet 500 light years away, with a very powerful telescope we see you writing in this thread. But when we try to make a picture of you, to our astonishment we see Columbus walking on the American continent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that theory has been so thoroughly tested, according to scientists, that any opposition to it is immediately debunked.

Debunk: To discredit, or expose to ridicule the falsehood or the exaggerated claims of something.
Wiktionary.

Yes, your father's idea were already debunked before he wrote them down.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His way of thinking is that if light travels and it takes time to get to Earth, then we can't see instantly if the photons have not arrived where our retina is located. I have said that the photons are at the retina if the conditions of efferent vision are met. This would not make sense if you're thinking in terms of the afferent account of vision, which Spacemonkey is doing.

So you are liar: you cannot provide a link where you answered Spacemonkey's questions. Nowhere did you ever react on them, as you said.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Stop! You are not reacting on the argument: you say that vision is instantaneous. You say that cameras 'see' the same way as we do. So cameras also detect events instantaneous, independent of the distance to the event. This contradicts the pictures TLR presented to you.

If this is not true, then you must assume the following scenario to be true:

On a planet 500 light years away, with a very powerful telescope we see you writing in this thread. But when we try to make a picture of you, to our astonishment we see Columbus walking on the American continent.

That is exactly what he is disputing GdB. That's why I believe cameras must work the same way our eyes do in this account of vision as well.

Retina Institute of Hawaii | Experts Blog

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that theory has been so thoroughly tested, according to scientists, that any opposition to it is immediately debunked.

Originally Posted by GdB

Debunk: To discredit, or expose to ridicule the falsehood or the exaggerated claims of something.
Wiktionary.

Yes, your father's idea were already debunked before he wrote them down.

That's your opinion, which is understandable. You think no differently than everyone else here and aren't even trying to understand why he came to this conclusion. You'd rather consider him a crackpot. It's a lot easier.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His way of thinking is that if light travels and it takes time to get to Earth, then we can't see instantly if the photons have not arrived where our retina is located. I have said that the photons are at the retina if the conditions of efferent vision are met. This would not make sense if you're thinking in terms of the afferent account of vision, which Spacemonkey is doing.

Originally Posted by GdB

So you are liar: you cannot provide a link where you answered Spacemonkey's questions. Nowhere did you ever react on them, as you said.

I'm sure someone in here can find it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think you have mistaken my meaning. I'd say she has been plenty effective. She's has acquired an audience hasn't she?

As for the preaching comment, you are necessarily speaking from ignorance as you can have no way of knowing how effective it has or has not been. Perhaps you meant that to be taken as an "astute observation" on your part. If so, I can only say that if we have learned nothing else in this thread we have at least learned the value of those.

Based on the way you post on this forum, I'm sure none of your congregation sleeps during one of your sermons.

And I would agree that we have learned the value of Lessans "astute observations".

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is exactly what he is disputing GdB. That's why I believe cameras must work the same way our eyes do in this account of vision as well.



Retina Institute of Hawaii | Experts Blog

Quoting this.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is exactly what he is disputing GdB. That's why I believe cameras must work the same way our eyes do in this account of vision as well.

You do not counter my argument at all. I know you father would not agree. But TLR proved for your eyes that he was wrong. You are evading the argument.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Retina Institute of Hawaii | Experts Blog

A great Website:

The individual components of the eye work in a manner similar to a camera. Each plays a vital role in providing clear vision. The cornea behaves much like a lens cover. As the eye’s main focusing element, the cornea takes widely diverging rays of light and bends them through the pupil, the dark, round opening in the center of the colored iris. The iris and pupil act like the aperture of a camera, opening and closing, allowing more or less light into the eye, depending on external lighting conditions. Next in line is the lens, which acts just like the lens in a camera, helping to focus light onto the back of the eye.
...
The very back of the eye is lined by a layer called the retina, which acts much like the film inside a camera. The retina, which is derived from the brain, is a thin layer of nerve tissue that contains photoreceptors (a type of nerve cell). Photoreceptors convert light rays into electrical impulses, which are then sent through the optic nerve to the brain, where an image is perceived.

What did you google? 'eye works like a camera'? Well that it is saying: camera and eye work according the same optical principles. But the website contradicts Lessans' view on vision. You did it again!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's your opinion, which is understandable. You think no differently than everyone else here and aren't even trying to understand why he came to this conclusion.

If his conclusions contradict established science, then there is not much use in understanding why he came to his conclusions. Especially because you cannot tell us what his 'astute observations' were. In fact, they are just wrong interpretations.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure someone in here can find it.

You can't? Why should I believe you that you answered these questions already? Of course there is a very easy way out: answer Spacemonkey's questions here and now. It should be not too difficult for someone with such a deep understanding of instantaneous, efferent vision. They are just yes or no questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

You do not counter my argument at all. I know you father would not agree. But TLR proved for your eyes that he was wrong. You are evading the argument.

A great Website:

What did you google? 'eye works like a camera'? Well that it is saying: camera and eye work according the same optical principles. But the website contradicts Lessans' view on vision. You did it again!

The only contradiction is that the information in the light transmutes into an image in the brain. Everything else remains the same.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's your opinion, which is understandable. You think no differently than everyone else here and aren't even trying to understand why he came to this conclusion.

Originally Posted by GdB

If his conclusions contradict established science, then there is not much use in understanding why he came to his conclusions. Especially because you cannot tell us what his 'astute observations' were. In fact, they are just wrong interpretations.

BULLSHIT. That is not how science works GdB. That means science (with their theories) are considered sacrosanct, which is a lie. That's not what scientific progress is supposed to be about. I give up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure someone in here can find it.

Originally Posted by GdB

You can't? Why should I believe you that you answered these questions already? Of course there is a very easy way out: answer Spacemonkey's questions here and now. It should be not too difficult for someone with such a deep understanding of instantaneous, efferent vision. They are just yes or no questions.

Noooo GdB. Stop using reasons why I must be wrong. It's as simple as I've never used this, so I don't know how to access it. I admit that I am ignorant on this subject. Does that mean that I'm wrong on everything else (which is how you people try to dismiss very intelligent individuals ), and my answer is a big fat NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only contradiction is that the information in the light transmutes into an image in the brain. Everything else remains the same.

You're changing your story again. Before, it was "the light is instantly at the retina, and everything else remains the same".

What do you think the optic nerve does?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is exactly what he is disputing GdB. That's why I believe cameras must work the same way our eyes do in this account of vision as well.

Retina Institute of Hawaii | Experts Blog

That's your opinion, which is understandable. You think no differently than everyone else here and aren't even trying to understand why he came to this conclusion. You'd rather consider him a crackpot. It's a lot easier.

I'm sure someone in here can find it.

Interesting, Peacegirl quotes an article that, in the first statement, contradicts what her father wrote.

"The human eye is remarkable. It serves to focus an image of the external world onto the retina and then sends this information on to the brain, where it is interpreted as vision."

Her father is disputing this idea due to his ignorance.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only contradiction is that the information in the light transmutes into an image in the brain. Everything else remains the same.

So you admit that we do not see instantaneously? ('Everything else remains the same')

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BULLSHIT. That is not how science works GdB. That means science (with their theories) are considered sacrosanct, which is a lie. That's not what scientific progress is supposed to be about. I give up.

Newton's mechanics was superseded by relativistic mechanics. But that does not mean that because of relativistic mechanics suddenly billiard balls roll differently! There is a basic level where science is right, and will stay right. This is what I call established science. Lessans' ideas about vision are against established science, and therefore wrong.

How do you explain the different times on TLR photographs?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooo GdB. Stop using reasons why I must be wrong. It's as simple as I've never used this, so I don't know how to access it. I admit that I am ignorant on this subject. Does that mean that I'm wrong on everything else (which is how you people try to dismiss very intelligent individuals ), and my answer is a big fat NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Just answer Spacemonkey's questions. Why don't you do it? Just simple yes/no questions!