A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

HOW???? THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT OF VISION.

Magic!

[Vivisectus]

I liked it better when lenses focused out to get an image. I am also disappointed that we are no longer creating a growing list of evidence which shows how relevant the book is.

[Dragar]

Yeah, that stuff about the object creating a 'mirror image' and the light acting as a 'conduit' was a pretty fun world salad.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Magic!

It's the magic of imagination; if you can just accept the (obviously, ludicrously, totally) counterfactual case as the factual case, then all the tension between the counterfactual case and the enormous body of knowledge that informs against it just disappears, like so many pixels into a dog's brain.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Magic!

Yes, that's just another word for efferent vision, PFM.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How does light of green wavelength get to the retina before it has had time to get there from the traffic light by traveling? Where did it come from?

We're back to square one. I told you it doesn't have to get there. It's already there the instant we see the object. You keep thinking that light has to travel to get there which would cause a delay. That is the afferent model in a nutshell. You just can't get beyond it.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Magic!

And what's wrong with that? "Efferent vision is true because efferent vision is true" has the virtue of simplicity, and simple is good! Besides, I have yet to see any logic textbook that declares Argumentum ad Harebrained Uppercase Decree an informal fallacy, so there!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

It's the magic of imagination; if you can just accept the (obviously, ludicrously, totally) counterfactual case as the factual case, then all the tension between the counterfactual case and the enormous body of knowledge that informs against it just disappears, like so many pixels into a dog's brain.

And the sooner we buy into the obviously, ludicrously and totally counterfactual case, the sooner we can get on with implementing the Lessantonian vision of perfectly cooked spaghetti and meatballs every Monday night, translucent fuck garments and banging on the dinner table (provided no children are present [even though refraining from banging on the dinner table just because children are present would effectively constitute blaming the young 'uns for wanting to watch]).

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

HOW???? THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT OF VISION. YOU ARE TRAPPED IN THE AFFERENT ACCOUNT. WHAT A JOKE!

Naming your account doesn't answer the question. Nor does blaming your questioner for your own lack of an answer.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're back to square one. I told you it doesn't have to get there. It's already there the instant we see the object. You keep thinking that light has to travel to get there which would cause a delay. That is the afferent model in a nutshell. You just can't get beyond it.

How can these green photons be at the retina at a given time if they never travelled there or arrived there? Are they instantly coming into existence at the retina as the traffic light changes to green?

This would be a whole lot easier if you would just answer my five questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop the lies and evasion.

Five words and you're done. Is that so hard?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can these green photons be at the retina at a given time if they never travelled there or arrived there? Are they instantly coming into existence at the retina as the traffic light changes to green?

This would be a whole lot easier if you would just answer my five questions.

I've said this many times; this is not teleportation. The frequency/wavelength is there instantly when we see the object because there is nothing in the light that is traveling with the information apart from the object itself. We are able to see the object in real time due to light's presence not because light had to get to us which would mean there was a delay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Naming your account doesn't answer the question. Nor does blaming your questioner for your own lack of an answer.

I'm not blaming you but I can't keep saying 4 is the answer to 2 plus 2 and you keep telling me to prove it because you believe it's 5.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

And the sooner we buy into the obviously, ludicrously and totally counterfactual case, the sooner we can get on with implementing the Lessantonian vision of perfectly cooked spaghetti and meatballs every Monday night, translucent fuck garments and banging on the dinner table (provided no children are present [even though refraining from banging on the dinner table just because children are present would effectively constitute blaming the young 'uns for wanting to watch]).

You are so damn confused it's laughable!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've said this many times; this is not teleportation. The frequency/wavelength is there instantly when we see the object because there is nothing in the light that is traveling with the information apart from the object itself. We are able to see the object in real time due to light's presence not because light had to get to us which would mean there was a delay.

You're just repeating that the green photons are there, but you are not answering the question: Are they coming into existence at the retina as the traffic light turns green or not?

Let's suppose you are right that green photons are at the retina instantly as soon as the traffic light turns green, and that these photons did not arrive from anywhere else...

Now, where and when did these green photons begin to exist?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not blaming you but I can't keep saying 4 is the answer to 2 plus 2 and you keep telling me to prove it because you believe it's 5.

False analogy. It's more like I'm asking for the answer to 2 + 2, and you are responding: THE ANSWER'S MATHS ALRIGHT?!?! NOW LEAVE ME ALONE!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The frequency/wavelength is there instantly when we see the object because there is nothing in the light that is traveling with the information apart from the object itself. We are able to see the object in real time due to light's presence not because light had to get to us which would mean there was a delay.

So the image of the object is at the eye instantly when we look at the object, and light with the information about the object doesn't bring anything except the object itself to the eye. We see the object because there is light at the object, but the image of the object doesn't travel to the eyes with the light. I suppose that to someone who had no knowledge about vision and optics this might make some sense, odd I've just described Lessans and Peacegirl.

What about an object that we are not looking at directly, an object in our peripheral vision, is the image of that object instantly at our eyes or does the image need to travel in the light.

[lyrical]

Peacegirl, if you have answered spacemonkey's 5 questions could you please link me to that post? I've read several thousand of posts in this thread but haven't come across the one of immediate interest. Thanks.

L.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by lyrical

Peacegirl, if you have answered spacemonkey's 5 questions could you please link me to that post? I've read several thousand of posts in this thread but haven't come across the one of immediate interest. Thanks.

L.

L, there was a long discussion that anyone with the ability to access it could. To me this sounds like a manipulation. Sorry. The bottom line is the claim he made regarding the eyes is not the most important claim. People could care less about the claim that can prevent war and crime. Go figure.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So the image of the object is at the eye instantly when we look at the object, and light with the information about the object doesn't bring anything except the object itself to the eye. We see the object because there is light at the object, but the image of the object doesn't travel to the eyes with the light. I suppose that to someone who had no knowledge about vision and optics this might make some sense, odd I've just described Lessans and Peacegirl.

What about an object that we are not looking at directly, an object in our peripheral vision, is the image of that object instantly at our eyes or does the image need to travel in the light.

I can't even stomach what you write. You're a jerk!!!!!!!!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

False analogy. It's more like I'm asking for the answer to 2 + 2, and you are responding: THE ANSWER'S MATHS ALRIGHT?!?! NOW LEAVE ME ALONE!

NOT! YOU KNOW THAT'S NOT HOW I'M RESPONDING BUT YOU WILL TURN ANY ANALOGY INTO SOMETHING THAT SUITS YOU. This will not go on!!!!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This will not go on!!!!

Of course it will. Remember when you returned from your recent four-day hiatus and announced that you'd no longer participate in any discussions about vision? How did that work out?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Of course it will. Remember when you returned from your recent four-day hiatus and announced that you'd no longer participate in any discussions about vision? How did that work out?

You can't stop taking things out of context, can you? You will protect your way of thinking at any cost, no matter how sneaky and unethical you are.

[lyrical]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

L, there was a long discussion that anyone with the ability to access it could. To me this sounds like a manipulation. Sorry. The bottom line is the claim he made regarding the eyes is not the most important claim. People could care less about the claim that can prevent war and crime. Go figure.

I'm not sure what you mean with your comment about manipulation, given I'm a newcomer to this thread and my request is reasonable. I'd like to see your answers. Are you referring to this recent discussion? Do you expect me to read this entire thread?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by lyrical

I'm not sure what you mean with your comment about manipulation, given I'm a newcomer to this thread and my request is reasonable. I'd like to see your answers. Are you referring to this recent discussion? Do you expect me to read this entire thread?

No Lyrical, I don't expect you to read the entire thread, nor should you expect me to search through this entire thread to show you where I answered these questions. If you are truly interested, like you say you are (and you're not just playing me), then go to Amazon and read the sample. If it sounds interesting you can buy the ebook, which will give you a much better understanding of the claims this author made, and the reasons for them.