A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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?

Light travels so it would be delayed but when we are looking at some material object, it would have to meet the requirements of efferent vision to be seen. We do not get the image of a material object from light alone. To repeat: We see it because it is there to be seen as it is in real time.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels so it would be delayed but when we are looking at some material object, it would have to meet the requirements of efferent vision to be seen. We do not get the image of a material object from light alone. To repeat: We see it because it is there to be seen as it is in real time.

What does that mean? Do we see the supernova remnant as it is right now, or as it was 8000-10000 years ago?

[thedoc]

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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels so it would be delayed but when we are looking at some material object, it would have to meet the requirements of efferent vision to be seen. We do not get the image of a material object from light alone. To repeat: We see it because it is there to be seen as it is in real time.

First you say that the images are delayed, implying that we see the object as it was when the light left it. Then you say that the light would be delayed getting here but then we would see the object as it is now? Can you explain how that works?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

What does that mean? Do we see the supernova remnant as it is right now, or as it was 8000-10000 years ago?

If light was traveling through space/time, we would see that light in delayed time because it is traveling from point A to point B. This does not negate real time vision due to the fact that when an object is within our field of view (which it must be in order to see it), light is revealing the object in real time, not in delayed time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light was traveling through space/time, we would see that light in delayed time because it is traveling from point A to point B. This does not negate real time vision due to the fact that when an object is within our field of view (which it must be in order to see it), light is revealing the object in real time, not in delayed time.

So we see both in delayed time, and in real time, at the same time!

Not surprising that you would take this new tack, as everyone here knows that you are nuts.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light was traveling through space/time, we would see that light in delayed time because it is traveling from point A to point B. This does not negate real time vision due to the fact that when an object is within our field of view (which it must be in order to see it), light is revealing the object in real time, not in delayed time.

The supernova remnant is an expanding cloud, as you can see in the video. Do we see that cloud as it is right now or as it was 8000-10000 years ago?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The supernova remnant is an expanding cloud, as you can see in the video. Do we see that cloud as it is right now or as it was 8000-10000 years ago?

If the cloud is a remnant of the Supernovae and has expanding particles in it which are the basic units of matter, then we would be seeing the cloud in real time although the remnant may have traveled a great distance. I know you disagree so there's no need to respond.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the cloud is a remnant of the Supernovae and has expanding particles in it which are the basic units of matter, then we would be seeing the cloud in real time although the remnant may have traveled a great distance. I know you disagree so there's no need to respond.

The particles aren't expanding, the cloud is expanding. That means it's getting bigger. The picture is taken in the visible spectrum as well as in X-rays. If the X-ray image is delayed, but the visible-light image is real-time, the two shouldn't match. But they do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

On what basis are you inferring it?

On the basis that this conditioning cannot be created internally. It's an external process. That's why the same thing cannot take place with the other senses.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Yes it does.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

You're wrong. It's not just about looking out through our eyes. It's how we photograph the object and the adjective and store it in memory. We cannot do this in the afferent account.

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.

But that's what would be happening. A value would be transmitted along with the object. Values are not transmitted this way.

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?

For the reasons given. If values cannot be transmitted through light, the only way a standard can be created is through word association which is a projection of a value onto real substance. So when the object is seen, the slide that has been photographed and stored in memory is retrieved and you now see not just a girl, but a beautiful girl; not just a man, but a handsome man; not just a duckling, but an ugly duckling. This is an efferent process.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The particles aren't expanding, the cloud is expanding. That means it's getting bigger. The picture is taken in the visible spectrum as well as in X-rays. If the X-ray image is delayed, but the visible-light image is real-time, the two shouldn't match. But they do.

I said they're traveling, and they're traveling at almost light speed. But when they arrive, we see the cloud in real time. Obviously, if the cloud is too small, we wouldn't see it. The fact that it's expanding means it is entering our field of view using a telescope. I really don't see the conflict here.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said they're traveling, and they're traveling at almost light speed. But when they arrive, we see the cloud in real time. Obviously, if the cloud is too small, we wouldn't see it. The fact that it's expanding means it is entering our field of view using a telescope. I really don't see the conflict here.

What you just said here, and what you said in your previous post, is just complete nonsense babble. And you know it.

So now you are on record as saying:

We see in delayed time.

We see in real time, at the same time we see in delayed time.

Nice work!

Shall I post that relativity graphic again, for your comments?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said they're traveling, and they're traveling at almost light speed. But when they arrive, we see the cloud in real time. Obviously, if the cloud is too small, we wouldn't see it. The fact that it's expanding means it is entering our field of view using a telescope. I really don't see the conflict here.

Read again what I wrote, slowly, and try to understand it. What you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said they're traveling, and they're traveling at almost light speed. But when they arrive, we see the cloud in real time. Obviously, if the cloud is too small, we wouldn't see it. The fact that it's expanding means it is entering our field of view using a telescope. I really don't see the conflict here.

The supernova was observed in 1572 by Tycho Brahe and others with the naked eye. It was almost as bright as the planet Venus. That means since then we have been getting plenty of light from that object. If what you're saying is true, we should see a cloud that has been expanding for 8000-10000 years. Instead we see a cloud that has been expanding for 400 years.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true that we would see the same thing under a psychological projection.

What does that even mean? Lessans does not say that his projection could not occur under afferent vision. He says only that our belief in afferent vision has made it hard for us to detect that it is happening. Again, the process is psychological, so it has nothing to do with the specific physiological mechanism of vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because afferent vision cannot distinguish between values and real substance.

Why would you believe that? Lessans never said any such thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you just like I told you that conscience works exactly as he described which excludes compatibilism entirely...<off-topic ranting snipped>

No, you have not told me, and now you're trying to change the subject. You said that YOU wanted to find out if his second discovery could survive without efferent vision. The good news is that it can, so why are you so vehemently and irrationally opposed to investigating this?

[Stephen Maturin]

Personally, I fail to see what SN 1572 has to do with Larry, Jim, Charlie and Harry, their boners or the juicy cunts of their lady friends.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

On the basis that this conditioning cannot be created internally. It's an external process. That's why the same thing cannot take place with the other senses.

You agreed the projection is psychological. That means it is an internal process. What do you think is happening externally? I do hope you're not back to words shooting out of people's eyeballs.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does.

How so? If we fall victim to this process of value-projection by assuming that values are out there to be seen and come to us afferently along with the rest of what we see, then we can overcome this under afferent vision by recognizing that they don't. We can recognize that we have psychologically projected values onto what we are afferently seeing. So why would you think that his projection requires efferent vision?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong. It's not just about looking out through our eyes. It's how we photograph the object and the adjective and store it in memory. We cannot do this in the afferent account.

Why not? We would see things in the afferent account. We would be able to form and store mental images. And we would be able to store the image as a conceptual archetype. None of this requires vision to be real-time or efferent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's what would be happening. A value would be transmitted along with the object. Values are not transmitted this way.

No that is not what would be happening under afferent vision, nor is that what your father said. He said that we have fallen victim to this psychological projection because under afferent vision it has been easy for us to make the mistake of thinking that values are out there externally and conveyed to us along with the rest of what we see. But it is still a mistake under afferent vision. Afferent vision does not say that this is what is actually happening!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For the reasons given. If values cannot be transmitted through light, the only way a standard can be created is through word association which is a projection of a value onto real substance. So when the object is seen, the slide that has been photographed and stored in memory is retrieved and you now see not just a girl, but a beautiful girl; not just a man, but a handsome man; not just a duckling, but an ugly duckling. This is an efferent process.

What part of it is an efferent process? Nothing actually comes out of the eyes during this projection. None of it requires us to be seeing in real-time. We receive an image afferently in delayed time, link it with a value-laden word internally and store this as a conceptual archetype, then when we next see something similar we project the value by activating this value-laden stored archetype and mistakenly believing that the value is out there as a part of what we are afferently seeing in delayed time. None of this is efferent. None of it requires real-time efferent vision. Even if you disagree with the description I've just given, you still haven't given any alternative account that does involve or require efferent vision.

Why are you so opposed to the idea that his second discovery can survive dropping efferent vision? You've seen for yourself how his ideas on vision cause massive opposition and skepticism, so how can it possibly be good for you to maintain that the two stand or fall together? You are even making up things Lessans never said in order to continue linking his one insightful and valuable observation with pseudoscientific nonsense that requires impossible magical photons. Why do this to yourself? It's as if you are deliberately trying to destroy his credibility.

[thedoc]

I can only come to the conclusion that Peacegirl has internalized her father's book, and will create any fantasy to support it. Otherwise she is brain dead to reality, and cannot see or understand anything that does not agree with her father's claims. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and Peacegirl has wasted her's.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The supernova was observed in 1572 by Tycho Brahe and others with the naked eye. It was almost as bright as the planet Venus. That means since then we have been getting plenty of light from that object. If what you're saying is true, we should see a cloud that has been expanding for 8000-10000 years. Instead we see a cloud that has been expanding for 400 years.

So what's your point?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You agreed the projection is psychological. That means it is an internal process. What do you think is happening externally? I do hope you're not back to words shooting out of people's eyeballs.

Wow! If that what you got from his writing, there's no point discussing this anymore.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How so? If we fall victim to this process of value-projection by assuming that values are out there to be seen and come to us afferently along with the rest of what we see, then we can overcome this under afferent vision by recognizing that they don't. We can recognize that we have psychologically projected values onto what we are afferently seeing. So why would you think that his projection requires efferent vision?

Because the value of that object (in the case of the eyes) can only come from the word slide that was photographed and stored in the brain. This is not an afferent process.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong. It's not just about looking out through our eyes. It's how we photograph the object and the adjective and store it in memory. We cannot do this in the afferent account.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why not? We would see things in the afferent account. We would be able to form and store mental images. And we would be able to store the image as a conceptual archetype. None of this requires vision to be real-time or efferent.

If the eyes were afferent, there could be no standard that makes it appear this beauty and ugliness actually exist. This is all due to conditioning which occurs when we project word slides that contain a value (and have no corresponding accuracy) onto real substance. This is an efferent process because standards of value cannot be transmitted through light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's what would be happening. A value would be transmitted along with the object. Values are not transmitted this way.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No that is not what would be happening under afferent vision, nor is that what your father said.

That IS what he said.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He said that we have fallen victim to this psychological projection because under afferent vision it has been easy for us to make the mistake of thinking that values are out there externally and conveyed to us along with the rest of what we see. But it is still a mistake under afferent vision. Afferent vision does not say that this is what is actually happening!

We have fallen victim to this psychological projection because of how a standard is created by the use of words ONLY. The value then becomes seen as personal because we see this beauty and ugliness with our very eyes. This standardization could not occur if it was an internal process like a taste for a certain food or a certain type of music.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For the reasons given. If values cannot be transmitted through light, the only way a standard can be created is through word association which is a projection of a value onto real substance. So when the object is seen, the slide that has been photographed and stored in memory is retrieved and you now see not just a girl, but a beautiful girl; not just a man, but a handsome man; not just a duckling, but an ugly duckling. This is an efferent process.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What part of it is an efferent process? Nothing actually comes out of the eyes during this projection. None of it requires us to be seeing in real-time. We receive an image afferently in delayed time, link it with a value-laden word internally and store this as a conceptual archetype, then when we next see something similar we project the value by activating this value-laden stored archetype and mistakenly believing that the value is out there as a part of what we are afferently seeing in delayed time. None of this is efferent. None of it requires real-time efferent vision. Even if you disagree with the description I've just given, you still haven't given any alternative account that does involve or require efferent vision.

Why are you so opposed to the idea that his second discovery can survive dropping efferent vision? You've seen for yourself how his ideas on vision cause massive opposition and skepticism, so how can it possibly be good for you to maintain that the two stand or fall together? You are even making up things Lessans never said in order to continue linking his one insightful and valuable observation with pseudoscientific nonsense that requires impossible magical photons. Why do this to yourself? It's as if you are deliberately trying to destroy his credibility.

I am not trying to ruin his credibility but I will stand behind his work. I believe the way we're conditioned by words can only be done in the way he described and I refuse to compromise just so people won't be mad at me.

[Spacemonkey]

Please sort your quote tags out. You've only replied to half the post. You should really try to finish a reply before posting it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please sort your quote tags out. You've only replied to half the post. You should really try to finish a reply before posting it.

I'm doing the best I can on my iPhone. I save it so that my post doesn't get deleted by accident. I don't want to start all over, which has already happened.

[Dragar]

Good grief, you're doing all this on a phone?!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing the best I can on my iPhone.

Why are you trying to do this on your iPhone?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you trying to do this on your iPhone?

What do you mean why? I don't have access to my laptop at the moment. What does this have to do with the price of eggs?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean why? I don't have access to my laptop at the moment. What does this have to do with the price of eggs?

Because you can't possibly hope to do this properly on a phone! What is wrong with your laptop, and when will you be able to post properly again? You've still only replied to half of my last post.