A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Really?

Okay then, here's a very brief list of some studies to get you started. It took less than 10 seconds to find them, by the way. If you want to read the original articles, You can easily find them in the stacks of any decent university library. Most of them are available online, as well. In fact, you should be able to easily get each of them through PubMed.

Do keep in mind, this is a very brief listing of just a tiny number of the multitudinous studies which demonstrate that Lessans was completely and utterly wrong about how the eyes function -- and that his claim that the eyes are not sense organs isn't just wrong, it's ludicrously wrong. (For particularly insightful analysis, compare the functioning of visual transduction pathways to the functioning of the olfactory transduction pathways in the nose.)



So, pick ... say ... 5 of the papers and tell us in detail what the researchers got wrong. Was their methodology flawed? If so, explain in full or be exposed as a liar. Was their analysis wrong? If so, explain in full or be exposed as a liar.

Do keep in mind that I am a scientist, and I have done research in the field, including dissection of human eyes.

• Korenbrot, J. I., and T. I. Rebrik. 2002. Tuning outer segments Ca2+ homeostasis to phototransduction in rods and cones. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 514: 179 - 203.
  
  
• Miller, J. L. and J. I. Korenbrot. 1994. Differences in calcium homeostasis between retinal rod and cone photoreceptors revealed by the effects of voltage on the cGMP-gated conductance in intact cells. The Journal of General Physiology. 104(5): 909 - 940.
  
  
• J. I. Korenbrot. 1995. Ca2+ flux in retinal rod and cone outer segments: differences in Ca2+ selectivity of the cGMP-gated ion channels and Ca2+ clearance rates. Cell Calcium. October; 18(4): 285 - 300.
  
  
• Ohyama, T., A. Picones, and J. I. Korenbrot. 2002. Voltage-depences of ion permeation in cyclic GMP-gated ion channels is optimized for cell function in rod and cone photoreceptors. The Journal of General Physiology. April, 119(4): 341 - 354.
  
  
• Korenbrot, J. I. 2012. Speed, sensitivity, and stability of the light response in rod and cone photoreceptors: facts and models. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. September, 31(5): 442 - 466.
  
  
• Koch, K. W. and D. Dell'Orco. 2015. Protein and signaling networks in vertebrate photoreceptor cells. Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience. November 18, 8:67.
  
  
• Calvert, P. D., T. W. Ho, Y. M. LeFebvre, and V. Y. Arshavsky. 1998. Onset of feedback reactions underlying vertebrate rod photoreceptor light adaptation. The Journal of General Physiology. January, 111(1): 39 - 51.
  
  
• Calvert, P. D. , V. I. Govardovskii, V. Y. Arshavsky, and C. L. Makino. 2002. Two temporal phases of light adaptation in retinal rods. The Journal of General Physiology. February, 119(2): 129 - 145.
  
  
• Arshavsky, V. Y. and T. G. Wensel. 2013. Timing is everything: GTPase regulation in phototransduction. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. November 21, 54(12): 7725 - 7733.
  
  
• Skiba, N. P., J. A. Hopp, and V. Y. Arshavsky. 2000. The effector enzyme regulates the duration of G protein signaling in vertebrate photoreceptors by increasing the affinity between transducer and RGS protein. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. October 20, 275(42): 32716 - 32720.
  
  
• Pearring, J. N., R. Y. Salinas, S. A. Baker, and V. Y. Arshavsky. 2013. Protein sorting, targeting and trafficking in photoreceptor cells. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. September 36: 24 - 51.
  
  
• Bi, Y. X. Wang, and A. Caramazza. 2016. Object domain and modality in the ventral visual pathway. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. March 1, S1364-6613.
  
  
• Wang, X., M. V. Peelen, Z. Han, C. He, A. Caramazza, and Y. Bi. 2015. How visual is the visual cortex? comparing connectional and functional fingerprints between congenitally blind and sighted individuals. The Journal of Neuroscience. September 9, 35(36): 12545 - 12559.
  
  
• Sani, L., E. Ricciardi, C. Gentili, N. Vanello, J. V. Haxby, and P. Pietrini. 2010. Effects of visual experience on the human MT+ functional connectivity networks: an fMRI study of motion perception in sighted and congenitally blind individuals. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. December 20, 4: 159.
  
  
• Ricciardi, E., D. Bonino, S. Pellegrini, and P. Pietrini. 2014. Mind the blind brain to understand the sighted one! is there a supramodal cortical functional architecture? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. April, 41: 64 - 77.
  
  
• Bonino, D., E. Ricciardi, G. Bernardi, L. Sani, C. Gentili, T. Vecchi, and P. Pietrini. 2015. Spatial imagery relies on a sensory independent, though sensory sensitive, functional organization within the parietal cortex: a fMRI study of angle discrimination in sighted and congenitally blind individuals. Neuropsychologia. February, 68: 59 - 70.
  

I realize, of course, that this is a very, very cursory introduction to the field. After all, a less-than-10-second search of PubMed turned up more than 2,500 such articles. And I deliberately used a very narrow search field, since a broader search turned up more than 50,000 articles.

As such, if you feel that these articles don't provide a sufficiently detailed analysis of human vision and how it works, I'll happily provide a few thousand more for your careful perusal.


By the way, if I were you, I'd pay particular attention to the articles comparing the functioning of the visual pathways in sighted vs. congenitally blind individuals. Not only do they provide quite a bit of information about the functioning of the eyes, visual pathway, and visual cortex of the brain, they provide key insights in how the visual systems adapt to changing conditions.

I guess you hadn't read the above post. If Lessans was wrong about his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ, so be it. That should not stop people from investigating his observations to see whether there is any validity to them, but it has to be done without prejudice. You have such a vendetta against me that you couldn't be objective if you tried. I will look at these studies, but this is not what I'm referring to. I cannot find any studies that are directly related to the nullification of Lessans' observations regarding how the brain works in relation to how we classify words and retain memory. You, like thedoc, cannot even explain what it was he observed because you don't know.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Keep convincing yourself that Lessans was wrong. Your comments have no bearing on the reality of Lessans' observations. You don't even understand what he observed. You can't even explain it in a coherent way.

Neither can you.

Proof:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Five words, Peacegirl. Five words and a little bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Neither can you.

Proof:

Spacemonkey, have you not heard? Announcement: I'm conceding that the eyes are a sense organ. So why are you continuing with this argument? I agree with you. Maybe he was wrong. Can you now look at his observations without defensiveness? I don't think so. This is a problem because of the preconceived ideas that cloud anything that may support this man's findings even IF THE EYES ARE A SENSE ORGAN. You are stuck Spacemonkey on your idea of photons getting there. That's why I am urging you to [temporarily] give this notion up in favor of trying to understand his observations in a different way. I don't know if you can do it, but that's okay. I'm not depending on you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, have you not heard? Announcement: I'm conceding that the eyes are a sense organ. So why are you continuing with this argument? I agree with you. Maybe he was wrong. Can you now look at his observations without defensiveness? I don't think so. This is a problem because of the preconceived ideas that cloud anything that may support this man's findings even IF THE EYES ARE A SENSE ORGAN. You are stuck Spacemonkey on your idea of photons getting there. That's why I am urging you to [temporarily] give this notion up in favor of trying to understand his observations in a different way. I don't know if you can do it, but that's okay. I'm not depending on you.

I'm not interested in your fake concessions. You said you weren't answering my questions because they allegedly don't apply. So either explain specifically how each one does not apply, or answer the damn questions already. I've been waiting long enough.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Five words, Peacegirl. Five words and a little bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, have you not heard? Announcement: I'm conceding that the eyes are a sense organ. So why are you continuing with this argument? I agree with you. Maybe he was wrong. Can you now look at his observations without defensiveness? I don't think so. This is a problem because of the preconceived ideas that cloud anything that may support this man's findings even IF THE EYES ARE A SENSE ORGAN. You are stuck Spacemonkey on your idea of photons getting there. That's why I am urging you to [temporarily] give this notion up in favor of trying to understand his observations in a different way. I don't know if you can do it, but that's okay. I'm not depending on you.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not interested in your fake concessions. You said you weren't answering my questions because they allegedly don't apply. So either explain specifically how each one does not apply, or answer the damn questions already. I've been waiting long enough.

Oh be quiet, you're on a hamster wheel and you can't get off.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You, like thedoc, cannot even explain what it was he observed because you don't know.

True enough, because neither you nor Lessans have ever stated what he observed, or when, or under what circumstances. You have only stated the conclusions and that they were based on astute observations, but you have never stated what those observations were.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

True enough, because neither you nor Lessans have ever stated what he observed, or when, or under what circumstances. You have only stated the conclusions and that they were based on astute observations, but you have never stated what those observations were.

He explained what he observed in a very detailed manner (and the inevitable conclusion that followed) which can be tested. You have the book, don't you? Go look it up. You are obviously not a good candidate to study his work and report back. This is not meant as a put down (I don't have the capacity to understand certain subjects), so please don't come back at me as if we're in battle. It could be that you just don't have the capacity to grasp what he's saying, or maybe you just have a block, I don't know, but I do know that you have no understanding of his discoveries whatsoever. It's like a chimpanzee trying to explain Einstein's discoveries. I'm not calling you a chimpanzee, but I hope you get the point. I wanted to give an extreme example so you would get it which I am sure you don't. I'm awaiting more blathering which has become your trademark.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, have you not heard? Announcement: I'm conceding that the eyes are a sense organ. So why are you continuing with this argument? I agree with you. Maybe he was wrong. Can you now look at his observations without defensiveness? I don't think so. This is a problem because of the preconceived ideas that cloud anything that may support this man's findings even IF THE EYES ARE A SENSE ORGAN. You are stuck Spacemonkey on your idea of photons getting there. That's why I am urging you to [temporarily] give this notion up in favor of trying to understand his observations in a different way. I don't know if you can do it, but that's okay. I'm not depending on you.

If the eyes are sense organs, then We don't see efferently or instantly, and most of your fathers claims fall apart. You have been defending this idea for 14 years, so it is a bit hard to believe that you are giving up on it now. It is much more likely that this is a fake concession to avoid answering the questions that would positively disprove the claims. This way you can later claim that you didn't actually concede that the eyes are sense organs. Just a little deceit on your part.

So now we are left with the question of determinism and free will and it has yet to be demonstrated or explained how the lack of free will, can lead to world peace. It has been claimed, but in Lessans rather confused and convoluted manner, and it needs quite a bit of clarification. Are you up to it? You need to justify the elimination of blame due to the lack of free will and account for all the possible variations in human nature that will be encountered, and explain how they will be dealt with? I would suggest that the first order of business is to establish free will or the lack of it, in terms that we can all agree on, and you are not the sole determiner of those terms.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He explained what he observed in a very detailed manner (and the inevitable conclusion that followed) which can be tested. You have the book, don't you? Go look it up. You are obviously not a good candidate to study his work and report back. This is not meant as a put down (I don't have the capacity to understand certain subjects), so please don't come back at me as if we're in battle. It could be that you just don't have the capacity to grasp what he's saying, or maybe you just have a block, I don't know, but I do know that you have no understanding of his discoveries whatsoever. It's like a chimpanzee trying to explain Einstein's discoveries. I'm not calling you a chimpanzee, but I hope you get the point. I wanted to give an extreme example so you would get it which I am sure you don't. I'm awaiting more blathering which has become your trademark.

Then stop being stubborn, humor us and explain his observations again. You claim they were in the book, so it shouldn't be a problem for you to find them and post them, you've posted excerpts from his book before. Perhaps I just didn't recognize his text as a description of his observations. And please edit it down to be as brief as possible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh be quiet, you're on a hamster wheel and you can't get off.

Peacegirl you claim to object to abuse directed at you, so set an example and don't direct abuse at others. Perhaps now you can understand how others feel when you don't directly answer a question, but evade and attempt to change the subject.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will look at these studies, but this is not what I'm referring to.

No, you won't. You know it, and we know it.

You, like thedoc, cannot even explain what it was he observed because you don't know.

Once more, for the thinking-impaired: Neither he nor you have provided even ONE example of an actual observation. All either of you has ever provided are unsupported claims. For years now, we've literally been begging for you to provide us with examples of these so-called "astute observations," and all you can do in response is say: "Trust me, he made observations, and they were astute."

Get back to us with an actual observation, and we'll talk.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If the eyes are sense organs, then We don't see efferently or instantly, and most of your fathers claims fall apart. You have been defending this idea for 14 years, so it is a bit hard to believe that you are giving up on it now. It is much more likely that this is a fake concession to avoid answering the questions that would positively disprove the claims. This way you can later claim that you didn't actually concede that the eyes are sense organs. Just a little deceit on your part.

I don't care whether the eyes are sense organs or not. What matters to me is that his observations about the eyes and brain get taken seriously, because if he's right (which I believe he is), the benefits of understanding this knowledge are enormous.

Originally Posted by thedoc

So now we are left with the question of determinism and free will and it has yet to be demonstrated or explained how the lack of free will, can lead to world peace. It has been claimed, but in Lessans rather confused and convoluted manner, and it needs quite a bit of clarification. Are you up to it? You need to justify the elimination of blame due to the lack of free will and account for all the possible variations in human nature that will be encountered, and explain how they will be dealt with? I would suggest that the first order of business is to establish free will or the lack of it, in terms that we can all agree on, and you are not the sole determiner of those terms.

You are being premature in your belief that because people are different in various ways, that there cannot be a common denominator that underlies all human nature. I have talked to you blue in the face and instead of listening carefully, you come up with an instant rebuttal (without giving what I'm saying careful thought). I don't want to go through that again. I am not expecting you to agree just to appease me. That's not what I'm saying, but at the very least please don't give kneejerk reactions for no reason other than you don't like my father's claims. You even admitted that this topic is not your forte, and that he might have known a little bit more than you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No, you won't. You know it, and we know it.

Once more, for the thinking-impaired: Neither he nor you have provided even ONE example of an actual observation. All either of you has ever provided are unsupported claims. For years now, we've literally been begging for you to provide us with examples of these so-called "astute observations," and all you can do in response is say: "Trust me, he made observations, and they were astute."

Get back to us with an actual observation, and we'll talk.

You have to be kidding Lone Ranger. I have never just said: "Trust me, he made observations, and they were astute." You are dismissing his observations as being unsupported because he didn't back them up with empirical proof, which is the only methodology you will accept or even consider. Do you even remember what his observations were?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then stop being stubborn, humor us and explain his observations again. You claim they were in the book, so it shouldn't be a problem for you to find them and post them, you've posted excerpts from his book before. Perhaps I just didn't recognize his text as a description of his observations. And please edit it down to be as brief as possible.

I wouldn't edit anything as this will only serve to confound the misunderstandings that have already derailed this thread. If I post anything from the book, I won't continue if people start immediately slamming his observations without giving them serious thought. They can come to their own conclusions after, not before, they study his findings with the care and consideration that any serious investigator would use.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never just said: "Trust me, he made observations, and they were astute."

Actually, you've said pretty-much exactly that -- almost word-for-word -- on numerous occasions. It's your standard operating procedure when someone ask what those "astute observations" were.

Do you even remember what his observations were?

Despite literally years of us asking for them, You STILL haven't given us even ONE example of any such "observations." Unsupported CLAIMS? Yes. Actual OBSERVATIONS? No.


For the umpteenth time: Provide us with some actual observations, and we can talk.

[Vivisectus]

I don't think anyone has noticed that Peacegirl accepted that the eyes are sense organs and that they work in the normal way, which is something that has never happened before. I did not think you had it in you, PG! Good for you. Are you leaing it in the book and just explaining that it is a different way of saying that we tend to project what we expect to see, or will you edit the book a little? I don't think it would take any major re-writing.

It has no impact on any of the other ideas in the book (at least the abridged version I found online) since no-one is disputing that what we end up seeing (The experience that we call sight rather than the process) is influenced by what we have learned to expect to see in many ways.

[thedoc]

In searching the book for descriptions of actual observations I find that Lessans is basing some criticism of the scientific community on the writings of Richard Milton who, like Lessans, was not a scientist but had the audacity to criticize that which he knew nothing about.

[thedoc]

Lessans asks that readers not base their criticism of the book on unverified knowledge, and then implies that all knowledge that he does not endorse is unverified. Unknown to Lessans there is much knowledge in science that has been verified, Lessans is just totally ignorant of it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh be quiet, you're on a hamster wheel and you can't get off.

Classic PG projection. Again, you claimed you would not answer my questions because they don't apply, yet they clearly do apply as you yourself admitted. So either explain how and why you think they don't apply, or answer them already. Five words is all it will take. What are you so afraid of? What have you got to lose?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Five words, Peacegirl. Five words and a little bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wouldn't edit anything...

Molecules of light.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What have you got to lose?

I was going to suggest her credibility, but she doesn't have any to start with, so she has nothing to lose.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, you've said pretty-much exactly that -- almost word-for-word -- on numerous occasions. It's your standard operating procedure when someone ask what those "astute observations" were.

That's ludicrous.

Do you even remember what his observations were?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Despite literally years of us asking for them, You STILL haven't given us even ONE example of any such "observations." Unsupported CLAIMS? Yes. Actual OBSERVATIONS? No.

Maybe you think that's all they are; unsupported claims. He made astute observations (and explained what those observations were) but you won't accept them or even consider them as being correct because he didn't supply empirical evidence. Of course his claim that the eyes aren't a sense organ probably threw you off to such a degree that you stopped listening altogether.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

For the umpteenth time: Provide us with some actual observations, and we can talk.

The only way I will do this is to cut and paste that section. I'm not working harder than anyone is willing to try and understand.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Molecules of light.

That's not even the part that I'm discussing. Why are you so stuck on that error Spacemonkey? I told you he was not an astronomer and didn't know the lingo. So he used the wrong word. So what!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

In searching the book for descriptions of actual observations I find that Lessans is basing some criticism of the scientific community on the writings of Richard Milton who, like Lessans, was not a scientist but had the audacity to criticize that which he knew nothing about.

I put that excerpt in, not him. You, like everyone else, judge the value of what is written by a faulty standard that has nothing to do with the value of the writing itself. This is a faulty way to judge someone's work.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction

The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.

The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to
stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth, but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost. However,
when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?

This
discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Classic PG projection. Again, you claimed you would not answer my questions because they don't apply, yet they clearly do apply as you yourself admitted. So either explain how and why you think they don't apply, or answer them already. Five words is all it will take. What are you so afraid of? What have you got to lose?

Bump.