A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Really? Because in that video you have the sound "Ba" being repeated over and over again, and you hear "Ba" or "Fa" depending on the image that goes with it.

I've listened to that video with my eyes closed, and I hear "Ba" every time. Yet, when I watch it with my eyes, which are supposedly not a sense organ, and I hear "Fa".

So, the eyes aren't a sense organ, yet my hearing can be affected by what I can see. How is that? How does Lessans explain that?

The eyes can be tricked because of what is seen in contrast to what is heard. When it's not congruent, we will hear the fa sound instead of the ba. It's an interesting phenomenon, but so what? What does this prove or not prove?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is an essential condition of sight, but that doesn't make sight afferent.

But that does not explain how the eyes can be a camera as well as a movie projector? How can "photographing" ever be anything but afferent? And why contrast the two, if the idea is not that both are happening? That makes no sense.

Actually I even think I see a way out for you: vision can be thought of as efferent. But sight is not. Sight is what the eyes do before the brain does any processing: raw information, basic shapes. This is an afferent process, and it is what would be detected if we did not project anything.

But vision, that is to say that which we end up experiencing, is not the mere detecting of light. The brain has learned to process this raw data extensively, project values onto what we see, and creates a model of what it expects to be out there... thus leading to optical illusions and so forth. This is what we could assume he meant when he spoke of us projecting word-slides and so on.

It does not make sight instant, however - there is no way I can think of that could reconcile THOSE claims with what we know to be true. But apart from that I think quite a few of the ideas from your book can, with a bit of goodwill, be reconciled with what we know about the brain and how it processes sight information.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Considering the devastating proofs many people have given, the likelihood Lessans is correct is so vanishingly small, it's not worth considering.

There's no vitriol. I'm sad. Sad for you, having wasted so many years of your life for attempting to sell something so stunningly wrong. Sad for Lessans, because he spent a good portion of his life on this work, and sad for him that you Bowdlerized his more playful and naughty original text.

I didn't bulldoze anything. That was one book. I combined them in a way that I thought was more comprehensive and more respectable. The way you're all acting is exactly why I took the explicit parts out. You have no idea what the point of that part was.

Originally Posted by specious reasons

I'm sad because I waste time reading people making conversation with a person who we all know cannot accept that the work to which they've dedicated their life is wrong.

OMG, it isn't wrong and he didn't waste his life. It is a burden on me, that's true, which is a difficult position to be in. But I try to balance my life with other interests. I do wish this claim regarding the senses could have been left out, although I don't think it could have. I am saddened because the only interest seems to have been on this subject when his other discovery is being ignored. Conscience does work exactly has he explained but no one even wants to investigate. This knowledge is revolutionary yet no one gives a damn.

[But]

So are the images of the supernova remnant real-time or not? Why don't you answer the question?

[peacegirl]

I missed this post. You should have bumped it.

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, you never responded to bother explaining your ridiculously contradictory description of how light works.

Here, let's try a simple set up.

A man, a camera, and a plain board of photo-reactive film are all arranged next to each other. The photo-reactive film will become blue when blue light strikes it, but won't react to red light.

A distant red flashlight is shining at the man, the camera, and the photo-reactive film. The flashlight is several light-minutes away, and it has been shining for several minutes (so the man and camera can see the light now, real time seeing or not). The light is red, so the film doesn't react.

A scientist switches the flashlight from emitting red light to emitting blue. It takes several minutes for the blue light to reach the man, the camera, and the light (right?).

a) What does the man see? Does he instantly see the light change from red to blue?

NO
b) What does the camera see? Does it instantly record the light change from red to blue?

NO
c) What does the photo-reactive film do? Does it react the instant the light has changed colour, or does it react only when the light has reached it?

Only when the light has reached it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

So are the images of the supernova remnant real-time or not? Why don't you answer the question?

The images are delayed.

A supernova remnant (SNR) is the structure resulting from the explosion of a star in a supernova. The supernova remnant is bounded by an expanding shock wave, and consists of ejected material expanding from the explosion, and the interstellar material it sweeps up and shocks along the way.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels, we know that Spacemonkey. For the sake of discussion, I will accept that we see stars and Supernovae in delayed time. I want to discuss physical events and physical objects. They are either seen in delayed time or they are seen in real time. According to Lessans' account, the physical events and objects are not decoded from the light therefore if an event is no longer present said event cannot be seen because the object is not reflecting the image (or information) through space/time. This is not as far-fetched as you think but you're going to argue with me that his claim is impossible.

And you are going to keep ignoring my reasons for concluding that it is impossible. That is not honest or reasonable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you are going to keep ignoring my reasons for concluding that it is impossible. That is not honest or reasonable.

And it's not reasonable to ignore the claim that we see in real time based on Lessans' observations, which you glossed over. You are completely wrong about his other discoveries as well.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know it does and he was quite clear that a standard of beauty and ugliness cannot be an internal process. It requires efferent vision to accomplish.

Why? Lessans never even said that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is due to the ability of the brain to attach words to certain images and store these associations in memory (that's what he meant by taking a photograph).

How does that require efferent vision?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a child hears that a certain facial feature is beautiful over and over again, and others are ugly, when he sees people with these features he will respond positively or negatively with the resulting feeling that accompanies them. He will believe this beauty and ugliness actually exist and you won't be able to convince him otherwise because he sees them with his very eyes.

How does that require efferent vision?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He doesn't realize that a standard was created early on which caused him to like certain preferences over others due to this conditioning. We cannot become conditioned in the same way with the other senses.

Even if that were true, how would it show that efferent vision is required?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And it's not reasonable to ignore the claim that we see in real time based on Lessans' observations, which you glossed over. You are completely wrong about his other discoveries as well.

I haven't ignored or glossed over anything. Stop lying. And stop ignoring my questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I missed this post. You should have bumped it.

Ah, so that's all I need to do! Why didn't I think of that before?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NO

So we see colour changes in delayed time, but everything else in real time? So if the newly ignited Sun exploded less than 8min after changing from white to blue, exploding as a blue Sun, we would see a white Sun explode?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you think his conditioning requires efferent vision?

That's not what I was asking. Why do you think his conditioning requires efferent vision?

Why do you think his conditioning requires efferent vision?

Let's grant you your questionable premise and agree that vision is more susceptible to conditioning via value-projection than other senses. So what? Firstly, how does efferent vision account for this difference? Secondly, how does this difference show that his conditioning could not occur under afferent vision?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please either answer these questions or explain why they allegedly do not apply.

You have said that there will be photons at the retina at 12:00 in your account, so why don't I get to ask questions about them? Why are my questions, which specifically address the things YOU have said about these photons in YOUR account, somehow not applicable to your account?

You have said these photons came from the Sun in your account, so why don't I get to ask when they were at the Sun? How is that question not applicable?

You have said these photons are traveling photons in your account, so why don't I get to ask what traveling they have done? How is that question not applicable?

Bump.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I missed this post. You should have bumped it.

So we don't see flashlights change colour in real time at all! We see in delayed time! You keep changing your mind!

Instead of a flashlight, the sun explodes. Before it was shining red, but the explosion is blue light. Do any of the below see this instantly?

a) The man watching?
b) The camera?
c) The photographic film?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes can be tricked because of what is seen in contrast to what is heard. When it's not congruent, we will hear the fa sound instead of the ba. It's an interesting phenomenon, but so what? What does this prove or not prove?

Don't you mean the ears have been tricked by what we see?

I'd ask you if you understand what this implies, but you won't and you never will. I should have guessed this is exactly how you'd react.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The images are delayed.

A supernova remnant (SNR) is the structure resulting from the explosion of a star in a supernova. The supernova remnant is bounded by an expanding shock wave, and consists of ejected material expanding from the explosion, and the interstellar material it sweeps up and shocks along the way.

So we get an image from an optical telescope, using visible light, of a physical object with a lot of visible structure, with a time delay.

I agree. That's what happens. The time delay is 8000-10000 years.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The images are delayed.

If you concede that the images of the supernova remnant are seen as a delayed image, then you must agree that all vision is delayed, and instant seeing is false. There is only one physics of vision, and what is true for the images of objects in space, is also true of images of objects and people on Earth. The eye/brain system works according to the known laws of physics, and not according to some magical ideas of your father.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And it's not reasonable to ignore the claim that we see in real time based on Lessans' observations, which you glossed over. You are completely wrong about his other discoveries as well.

It is quite reasonable to say that Lessans claims about real time vision are wrong because the claims contradict everything we know and have shown to be true about light and vision. It is reasonable to assume that if Lessans was wrong about vision, then he was probably wrong about everything that he claimed were based on his ideas of vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know it does and he was quite clear that a standard of beauty and ugliness cannot be an internal process. It requires efferent vision to accomplish.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why? Lessans never even said that.

He didn't have to say it. It can be inferred.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is due to the ability of the brain to attach words to certain images and store these associations in memory (that's what he meant by taking a photograph).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How does that require efferent vision?

Because it is assumed that what we see is real due to the fact that it comes to us by means of light, when it's the projection of the word onto real substance that causes us to become conditioned.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a child hears that a certain facial feature is beautiful over and over again, and others are ugly, when he sees people with these features he will respond positively or negatively with the resulting feeling that accompanies them. He will believe this beauty and ugliness actually exist and you won't be able to convince him otherwise because he sees them with his very eyes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How does that require efferent vision?

Because nothing in the light is entering his brain for interpretation. If that was occurring, he couldn't separate the value from the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He doesn't realize that a standard was created early on which caused him to like certain preferences over others due to this conditioning. We cannot become conditioned in the same way with the other senses.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Even if that were true, how would it show that efferent vision is required?

Because values cannot be transmitted through light. They are attached to objects which give the appearance of reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Don't you mean the ears have been tricked by what we see?

I'd ask you if you understand what this implies, but you won't and you never will. I should have guessed this is exactly how you'd react.

Right. We see the person saying fa and we compensate by canceling out ba in order to reconcile the two contradictory messages.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So we don't see flashlights change colour in real time at all! We see in delayed time! You keep changing your mind!

Instead of a flashlight, the sun explodes. Before it was shining red, but the explosion is blue light. Do any of the below see this instantly?

a) The man watching?
b) The camera?
c) The photographic film?

First of all, I don't think your previous example met the conditions of efferent vision. There has to be an object large enough to be seen. In this example, if the Sun is within optical range, and it explodes (which means it would have enough luminosity to be seen within a nanosecond; remember the candle example?), we would see it explode in red light unless it is incapable of picking up red light (i.e. the photographic film). I am not denying that light travels and will arrive with the color that was traveling first, but that doesn't address the issue of what we would see if our eyes are truly efferent.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't have to say it. It can be inferred.

On what basis are you inferring it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it is assumed that what we see is real due to the fact that it comes to us by means of light, when it's the projection of the word onto real substance that causes us to become conditioned.

So what? That just means it is difficult for us under afferent vision to uncover this projection. It doesn't mean that this projection itself is impossible under afferent vision. It doesn't even mean that it would be any less difficult to uncover under efferent vision (when it would be assumed that what we see is real because we look out through the eyes and see it). Also, the projection is psychological, so it can occur under either account of vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because nothing in the light is entering his brain for interpretation. If that was occurring, he couldn't separate the value from the object.

Why would we be unable to separate values from objects under afferent vision? Afferent vision does not say that values actually enter the brain through the optic nerve along with the information about the light striking the retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because values cannot be transmitted through light. They are attached to objects which give the appearance of reality.

We can agree under both efferent and afferent vision that values are not transmitted through light. So again, how does any of this show that his account of conditioning requires efferent vision?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, I don't think your previous example met the conditions of efferent vision. There has to be an object large enough to be seen.

What does that even mean? I don't know about you, but I can see a torch or a lamp at quite a distance - and I can see it change colour, too. So your magical conditions are quite clearly met.

In this example, if the Sun is within optical range, and it explodes (which means it would have enough luminosity to be seen within a nanosecond; remember the candle example?), we would see it explode in red light unless it is incapable of picking up red light (i.e. the photographic film). I am not denying that light travels and will arrive with the color that was traveling first, but that doesn't address the issue of what we would see if our eyes are truly efferent.

We'd see it explode 'in red light'?

But peacegirl, the sun has changed colour. Are you saying we would see the explosion instantly, entirely in the colour red, but we would only see the sun turn blue once the blue light arrived?

What if the sun changed colour, to blue, without any obvious 'explosion'? Would we see this colour change instantly in real-time, before the blue light has reached us? Would the photographic film react?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

On what basis are you inferring it?

So what? That just means it is difficult for us under afferent vision to uncover this projection. It doesn't mean that this projection itself is impossible under afferent vision. It doesn't even mean that it would be any less difficult to uncover under efferent vision (when it would be assumed that what we see is real because we look out through the eyes and see it). Also, the projection is psychological, so it can occur under either account of vision.

Not true that we would see the same thing under a psychological projection. This is getting very convoluted for good reason. You want him to be wrong in any way you can figure out. God forbid science got it wrong all these years.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because nothing in the light is entering his brain for interpretation. If that was occurring, he couldn't separate the value from the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why would we be unable to separate values from objects under afferent vision? Afferent vision does not say that values actually enter the brain through the optic nerve along with the information about the light striking the retina.

Because afferent vision cannot distinguish between values and real substance. Please take time to understand this Spacemonkey. I really hope you do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because values cannot be transmitted through light. They are attached to objects which give the appearance of reality.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We can agree under both efferent and afferent vision that values are not transmitted through light. So again, how does any of this show that his account of conditioning requires efferent vision?

I already told you just like I told you that conscience works exactly as he described which excludes compatibilism entirely. Your reasoning is off Spacemonkey (if you are true to yourself you will have to deal with at some point), but you come off like some kind of authority on this subject. That puts me in a difficult position as a peon in comparison to your knowledge as a philosophy major. I am only saying this because that is what is making this conversation so imbalanced. You look at yourself as the only arbiter of truth. You have never called upon anyone but yourself to determine truth from fiction. I am disgusted.

[But]

peacegirl, you agree that we see the supernova cloud with a time delay. Which things do we see in real time and which ones are delayed?