A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain is not seeing through the eyes.

That is not what your father wrote in the book, Lessans stated that the brain is looking through the eyes as windows. Now you are contradicting what your father wrote in the book as well as contradicting your own statements earlier in this thread.

The trouble with lies is that you need to remember which lies you are telling to who, so that you don't get mixed up and tell people a different lie than you have told them before. The truth is much easier, you just remember the truth and keep telling it to everyone.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is that what you're out for; to correct me in my mistakes. What a big joke this is!

I understand that you are never going to accept or believe anything I post, but I can still post the truth of reality for those thousands of lurkers who are reading this thread and might be misled by your fiction.

[Vivisectus]

When the brain forces a focusing of the light through the eyes, the lens obviously is moving or changing to make certain accommodations.

Ok, so when you use the word "Focus" you mean "changing the lens in order to redirect light in such a way as to allow us to see a clear image"

Which i a rough and oversimplified way is the same as in optics.

But that is an inherently afferent process, and it does not work if you try to replace "focus" with that sentence in the book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

None of this proves that what we are seeing is just a representation.

A photoreceptor cell is a specialized type of neuron found in the retina that is capable of phototransduction. The great biological importance of photoreceptors is that they convert light (visible electromagnetic radiation) into signals that can stimulate biological processes. To be more specific, photoreceptor proteins in the cell absorb photons, triggering a change in the cell's membrane potential.

There are currently three known types of photoreceptor cells in mammalian eyes: rods, cones, and photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. The two classic photoreceptor cells are rods and cones, each contributing information used by the visual system to form a representation of the visual world, sight. The rods are narrower than the cones and distributed differently across the retina, but the chemical process in each that supports phototransduction is similar.[1] A third class of photoreceptor cells was discovered during the 1990s:[2] the photosensitive ganglion cells. These cells do not contribute to sight directly, but are thought to support circadian rhythms and pupillary reflex.

There are major functional differences between the rods and cones. Rods are extremely sensitive, and can be triggered by a single photon.[3][4] At very low light levels, visual experience is based solely on the rod signal. This explains why colors cannot be seen at low light levels: only one type of photoreceptor cell is active.

Photoreceptor cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are correct, this doesn't prove anything, but it indicates that the retina is composed of photosensitive afferent nerve endings that send signals to the brain to be interpreted as images, and signals to the brain and then to other parts of the eye to adjust the lens and the iris. After all this, Viola we see.

Rather than "something else is going on", with the brain looking through the eyes, and then "magic happens", and Viola we see.

Of course the 2nd scenario is much more romantic and poetic, and I can understand how Lessans would be fooled into believing it, lacking the relevant education. But I don't understand that you, supposedly with better education, can still believe it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That is not what your father wrote in the book, Lessans stated that the brain is looking through the eyes as windows. Now you are contradicting what your father wrote in the book as well as contradicting your own statements earlier in this thread.

I am not contradicting anything. The brain causes the eyes to focus and in that sense you can say the brain is looking through the eyes, as windows to the outside world in contrast to the brain decoding incoming light into images.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The trouble with lies is that you need to remember which lies you are telling to who, so that you don't get mixed up and tell people a different lie than you have told them before. The truth is much easier, you just remember the truth and keep telling it to everyone.

No, that's not it at all Vivisectus. I guess this is the end of the road because no one wants to go forward.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are correct, this doesn't prove anything, but it indicates that the retina is composed of photosensitive afferent nerve endings that send signals to the brain to be interpreted as images, and signals to the brain and then to other parts of the eye to adjust the lens and the iris. After all this, Viola we see.

Rather than "something else is going on", with the brain looking through the eyes, and then "magic happens", and Viola we see.

Of course the 2nd scenario is much more romantic and poetic, and I can understand how Lessans would be fooled into believing it, lacking the relevant education. But I don't understand that you, supposedly with better education, can still believe it?

A better education? What the hell are you blathering about now? There is no magic here. Signals are still going to the brain via the other senses. Signals are also being sent to the brain via the optic nerve. But this doesn't prove that the brain is interpreting these signals as virtual images representing real life.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok, so when you use the word "Focus" you mean "changing the lens in order to redirect light in such a way as to allow us to see a clear image"

Which i a rough and oversimplified way is the same as in optics.

But that is an inherently afferent process, and it does not work if you try to replace "focus" with that sentence in the book.

It is not an inherently afferent process if the eyes see the actual object rather than a virtual image of the object.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Signals are still going to the brain via the other senses. Signals are also being sent to the brain via the optic nerve. But this doesn't prove that the brain is interpreting these signals as virtual images representing real life.

You are contradicting your father again, he clearly stated that there were "no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye", so there are no afferent nerves in the eye to send signals to the brain, according to your father. Lessans implied that the brain somehow projected itself through the eyes to perceive the outside world through direct contact.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not an inherently afferent process if the eyes see the actual object rather than a virtual image of the object.

The eye/brain actually receive the reflected light from the actual object and interpret is as an image of the actual object, there is nothing virtual about it. Virtual is an image that is constructed from information that is sent from one location to another, such as the image on your computer screen. What looks like a page of text is actually just light being projected, based on the information that the computer receives from the internet. In most cases there is no actual page anywhere, unless you print it out with your printer, and this I do on occasion when I want to keep something for future reference.

FYI, I have not printed out any of your fathers book, reading it on screen is bad enough.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are contradicting your father again, he clearly stated that there were "no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye", so there are no afferent nerves in the eye to send signals to the brain, according to your father. Lessans implied that the brain somehow projected itself through the eyes to perceive the outside world directly.

There has to be a connection doc. I believe he meant that the transduction of light did not turn impulses into visual images. Instead of trying to discredit him, just try to hear his explanation because what you're doing is trying to fit your belief as to what is going on as a reason to reject his claim right off the bat. It won't work. If you still disagree with him after his presentation, then that's fine but no one is letting me move forward. It seems ridiculous that he would even attempt to dispute what has been accepted as fact for centuries, and that's why you come off as rude as you do. You think he couldn't possibly be right, and that's where prejudice could ruin a unbiased investigation by top scientists.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The eye/brain actually receive the reflected light from the actual object and interpret is as an image of the actual object, there is nothing virtual about it. Virtual is an image that is constructed from information that is sent from one location to another, such as the image on your computer screen. What looks like a page of text is actually just light being projected, based on the information that the computer receives from the internet. In most cases there is no actual page anywhere, unless you print it out with your printer, and this I do on occasion when I want to keep something for future reference.

FYI, I have not printed out any of your fathers book, reading it on screen is bad enough.

Whether we see directly, in real time, or in delayed time, the brain still has to interpret what it sees. Constructing an image from light is not the same thing as seeing the real object. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word virtual. I'll give you that much.

[But]

So what are these signals sent from the rods and cones to the brain?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not contradicting anything. The brain causes the eyes to focus and in that sense you can say the brain is looking through the eyes, as windows to the outside world in contrast to the brain decoding incoming light into images.

No, that's not it at all Vivisectus. I guess this is the end of the road because no one wants to go forward.

Eh? I never said that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has to be a connection doc. I believe he meant that the transduction of light did not turn impulses into visual images. Instead of trying to discredit him, just try to hear his explanation because what you're doing is trying to fit your belief as to what is going on as a reason to reject his claim right off the bat. It won't work. If you still disagree with him after his presentation, then that's fine but no one is letting me move forward. It seems ridiculous that he would even attempt to dispute what has been accepted as fact for centuries, and that's why you come off as rude as you do. You think he couldn't possibly be right, and that's where prejudice could ruin a unbiased investigation by top scientists.

I have read what your father wrote in the book about vision several times, and I understand what he wrote, and what he was trying to say, and none of it tallies with what has been observed in the real world. You have had several years to try and explain his writings, or edit them to reflect what is happening in the real world, but you have refused to see reality, or to change the book to reflect reality. Your failure leaves me with only your fathers fantasy, and that has been demonstrated to be wrong many times and in many different ways. Your father is disputing what has been known about vision for many years, because he didn't know or understand any of it, and that is clear through his writing. In the real world the transduction of light into signals, and the interpretation of signals into images in the brain, is how it works. This has been examined and documented for many years.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not an inherently afferent process if the eyes see the actual object rather than a virtual image of the object.

The process you described involved light coming into the eye and being redirected. So yeah, completely afferent, and also it does not work if you apply it to the text.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Eh? I never said that.

I know that, and it's not a problem for me, Peacegirl is just having trouble with her quote tags.

BTW, how's the piano coming along?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether we see directly, in real time, or in delayed time, the brain still has to interpret what it sees. Constructing an image from light is not the same thing as seeing the real object.

Yes the brain has to interpret what is sees via the light that strikes the retina that has been reflected by the object. The only way that I know of to contact the object directly is to Braille it, and that involves the hands and the sense of touch, not the eyes. Using the eyes would be a bit painful, I would think, and they don't have the correct type of afferent nerve endings.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

So what are these signals sent from the rods and cones to the brain?

They are impulses. I don't have all the technical answers. First, you have to understand his demonstration. If his account is plausible, then it's time enough to understand the mechanism. You're trying to cut him off prematurely.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The process you described involved light coming into the eye and being redirected. So yeah, completely afferent, and also it does not work if you apply it to the text.

Whatever. I already said to leave out the words afferent and efferent but no one listens.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have read what your father wrote in the book about vision several times, and I understand what he wrote, and what he was trying to say, and none of it tallies with what has been observed in the real world. You have had several years to try and explain his writings, or edit them to reflect what is happening in the real world, but you have refused to see reality, or to change the book to reflect reality. Your failure leaves me with only your fathers fantasy, and that has been demonstrated to be wrong many times and in many different ways. Your father is disputing what has been known about vision for many years, because he didn't know or understand any of it, and that is clear through his writing. In the real world the transduction of light into signals, and the interpretation of signals into images in the brain, is how it works. This has been examined and documented for many years.

I would never change the book because his claims deal with reality. You are just parroting, repeating, and parroting again, thinking that this is valid proof. It isn't. This claim is not a fantasy. As far as understanding the other parts of the book, forget it. You understand nothing. You don't understand why determinism is true, and you admitted that you don't know enough about it to form an opinion. So accept your limitations and be a mensch for once.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever. I already said to leave out the words afferent and efferent but no one listens.

Focusing the light is an afferent process in vision. According to Lessans efferent vision has nothing to do with focus because the light does not bring the image, it only needs to illuminate the object. Are you going to contradict your father again?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are impulses. I don't have all the technical answers. First, you have to understand his demonstration. If his account is plausible, then it's time enough to understand the mechanism. You're trying to cut him off prematurely.

Do they transmit the information that makes up the image?

[Vivisectus]

Whatever. I already said to leave out the words afferent and efferent but no one listens.

All I am doing is trying to work out what the passages you quoted actually mean. I cannot work out what "focus" is supposed to mean the way your father used it.

The only way I can make sense of it is if it means "to look at" or "To direct attention to", but even then there are passages where this is problematical, and some of it becomes a bit circular.

But then according to you, it involves redirecting light, and is something the eyes do?

And none of this has brought us a step closer to understanding why he believed the eyes to work that way, or to being able to check if we find those reasons convincing also.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Do they transmit the information that makes up the image?

If it was a fact that the impulses transmit the information that make up the image that is then interpreted in the brain as normal vision, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All I am doing is trying to work out what the passages you quoted actually mean. I cannot work out what "focus" is supposed to mean the way your father used it.

The only way I can make sense of it is if it means "to look at" or "To direct attention to", but even then there are passages where this is problematical, and some of it becomes a bit circular.

It's more than directing attention to, or looking at. How can a baby look at an object if he cannot focus because his eyes are not working in unison?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But then according to you, it involves redirecting light, and is something the eyes do?

No, the eyes don't redirect light; they focus on the object just like we do in the afferent account. The only difference is that the baby could not focus until the other senses caused a desire to see.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And none of this has brought us a step closer to understanding why he believed the eyes to work that way, or to being able to check if we find those reasons convincing also.

Because I'm not done yet. After I'm done, you can either find his reasoning convincing, or you won't. It really doesn't matter to me, but you have to give him a chance to explain what he believed was going on.