A revolution in thought

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by But

Maybe if the eyes work backwards, a projector has to work backwards, too?

That's just a vacuum cleaner.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Convince yourself that this is an internal linking that forms an archetype when we don't do this with any other sense organ. With any other sense, we either like something, or we don't. There is no linking because this internal process sets up no standard for everyone. It can't.

You don't know that, you're only repeating what your father wrote in his book, and there is no support for those ideas. There is support for the concept of conditioning through the other senses internally, not just vision. Many people can learn to like different foods, like different music, or appreciate different aromas. And vision isn't conditioned the way Lessans claims, both Lessans and you are wrong. Society sets up standards for the members of that society. Some African tribes believe that certain visual ornaments are beautiful, western societies don't share those ideas. The standard of beauty is determined by the society, and those standards are adopted by most members of that society.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

That's just a vacuum cleaner.

So this guy is describing the efferent light bulb?

The Theory of Dark Suckers

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

That's just a vacuum cleaner.

But it's sucking up light?

[Angakuk]

Vacuums are, by nature, dark. Light dirties up the vacuum. This is why we need vacuum cleaners to suck the light out of the vacuum and restore the vacuum to its pristine dark condition.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing comes out of a projector either. What are you even talking about?

Is there no end to peacegirl's brilliance?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no linking because this internal process sets up no standard for everyone.

True, there is no process, internal or external, that sets up a standard for everyone. Even very strong social pressures are not capable of forcing all the members of a society to adopt the dominant social standards. Voila, social deviants!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I don't even know, but I thanked it anyway.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why not? You still aren't explaining why you think efferent vision is needed. Linking a value internally to form an archetype is exactly what Lessans described.

That's not what he described.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe it does. There is no linking with any other sense that forms an archetype, because it is an internal (an individual) process.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What? According to Lessans the external standard is a myth - a mistake on either account of vision. Why are you rejecting what your father said?

It is not a myth. The standard is real.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The projection part.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What part of that is external? How does this projection require efferent vision? You don't even know, do you?

The combined word/object is projected when the object is seen. You may try to create another model that doesn't require efferent vision. As always, it will boil down to whose model is correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing comes out of a projector either. What are you even talking about?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



How do you think a projector works, Peacegirl?

I was making a comparison. Nothing is shooting out of the projector just like nothing is shooting out of the eyes. A projector uses light just like our eyes do. Because of the way the eyes work some of what we see are accurate representations of reality but others are not depending on what word slides are stored in our memory banks and projected onto the screen. I know you're going to argue with me that it doesn't require efferent vision for this deception to be accomplished. That's fine and dandy. Bottom line is whose explanation is more accurate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Convince yourself that this is an internal linking that forms an archetype when we don't do this with any other sense organ. With any other sense, we either like something, or we don't. There is no linking because this internal process sets up no standard for everyone.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How are you jumping from projection and conditioning affecting visual input more than other senses to vision having to be efferent and real time for the projection to occur? I keep asking and you keep whining and trying to change the subject. We can always discuss photons again if you prefer. Or your no doubt fascinating ideas about how projectors work.

It's not just a matter of conditioning affecting visual input more than the other senses. The other senses cannot create the same kind of conditioning because they are receiving and transmitting external stimuli which is an individual process. You could say a certain food is yummy to a baby over and over again, and if that baby doesn't like that food she will reject it. There is no standard that can be created where the more you say something is delicious the more delicious that food will be to every child that hears this. You could say it a thousand times and it will not affect the tastebuds of that child. Conversely, you could say a certain food is yucky 1000 times, but if that child likes the taste of that food, she will think it's yummy and no yucky face or word will convince her otherwise. That is not the case with the eyes. It's true that what a child is exposed to will influence his taste for a particular item. But even in the same culture, there is no agreement on what a child will like or dislike due to individual taste.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was making a comparison. Nothing is shooting out of the projector just like nothing is shooting out of the eyes. A projector uses light just like our eyes do.

You mean nothing is shooting out of the projector just like nothing is shooting into the eyes? Which would be bull, of course, but that's the analogy. If you compare the eyes to a projector, the retina is the screen.

[Vivisectus]

Nothing is shooting out of the projector just like nothing is shooting out of the eyes.

Really? Think about it for a second.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what he described.

I think it is, and I have explained why. Are you ever going to explain your version?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not a myth. The standard is real.

What do you mean? Externally existing objective values are the myth. Perhaps you are talking about the cultural norms and expectations that feed the conditioning process?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The combined word/object is projected when the object is seen. You may try to create another model that doesn't require efferent vision. As always, it will boil down to whose model is correct.

Lessans' version doesn't require efferent vision, and you still haven't presented any version that does. What do you even mean when you say this projection is 'external'? What part of it is occurring outside of the person's head?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was making a comparison. Nothing is shooting out of the projector just like nothing is shooting out of the eyes. A projector uses light just like our eyes do.

Are you actually retarded? LIGHT shoots out of a projector, just as light goes INTO the eyes. They are not the same at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because of the way the eyes work some of what we see are accurate representations of reality but others are not depending on what word slides are stored in our memory banks and projected onto the screen.

You are talking in metaphors again. Please explain this in literal rather than figurative terms, and then explain how any of it requires efferent vision. If you don't actually know then just say so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not just a matter of conditioning affecting visual input more than the other senses. The other senses cannot create the same kind of conditioning because they are receiving and transmitting external stimuli which is an individual process. You could say a certain food is yummy to a baby over and over again, and if that baby doesn't like that food she will reject it. There is no standard that can be created where the more you say something is delicious the more delicious that food will be to every child that hears this. You could say it a thousand times and it will not affect the tastebuds of that child. Conversely, you could say a certain food is yucky 1000 times, but if that child likes the taste of that food, she will think it's yummy and no yucky face or word will convince her otherwise. That is not the case with the eyes. It's true that what a child is exposed to will influence his taste for a particular item. But even in the same culture, there is no agreement on what a child will like or dislike due to individual taste.

So what? Again, how does this difference translate into a need for efferent vision?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Really? Think about it for a second.

I'm laughing right along with you!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not just a matter of conditioning affecting visual input more than the other senses. The other senses cannot create the same kind of conditioning because they are receiving and transmitting external stimuli which is an individual process. You could say a certain food is yummy to a baby over and over again, and if that baby doesn't like that food she will reject it. There is no standard that can be created where the more you say something is delicious the more delicious that food will be to every child that hears this. You could say it a thousand times and it will not affect the tastebuds of that child. Conversely, you could say a certain food is yucky 1000 times, but if that child likes the taste of that food, she will think it's yummy and no yucky face or word will convince her otherwise. That is not the case with the eyes. It's true that what a child is exposed to will influence his taste for a particular item. But even in the same culture, there is no agreement on what a child will like or dislike due to individual taste.

What is the factual basis for this claim? From what data set is it derived?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I think it is, and I have explained why. Are you ever going to explain your version?

What do you mean? Externally existing objective values are the myth. Perhaps you are talking about the cultural norms and expectations that feed the conditioning process?

Lessans' version doesn't require efferent vision, and you still haven't presented any version that does. What do you even mean when you say this projection is 'external'? What part of it is occurring outside of the person's head?

Are you actually retarded? LIGHT shoots out of a projector, just as light goes INTO the eyes. They are not the same at all.

You are talking in metaphors again. Please explain this in literal rather than figurative terms, and then explain how any of it requires efferent vision. If you don't actually know then just say so.

So what? Again, how does this difference translate into a need for efferent vision?

Because a standard cannot be developed, no matter how hard you try to do this. As in the other senses, no word can develop as an archetype for the general population. There is a difference even if you choose to ignore it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

What is the factual basis for this claim? From what data set is it derived?

His astute and perceptive observations which cannot just be ignored because they aren't obvious to the average person. Similarly, the truth of determinism cannot be ignored just because it isn't obvious to the average person.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because a standard cannot be developed, no matter how hard you try to do this. As in the other senses, no word can develop as an archetype for the general population. There is a difference even if you choose to ignore it.

You're still not even trying to explain what essential role efferent vision has in this process of developing an archetype. You also appear to now be conflating personal archetypes with social norms. It looks very much as if you have no idea what you're even talking about.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His astute and perceptive observations which cannot just be ignored...

They are not just ignored. They are also laughed at, ridiculed, and roundly refuted on a daily basis.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His astute and perceptive observations which cannot just be ignored because they aren't obvious to the average person. Similarly, the truth of determinism cannot be ignored just because it isn't obvious to the average person.

I'm not ignoring these claims. Quite the opposite - I am inquiring as to their factual basis. From what data set are they derived? What evidence substantiates them?

[Spacemonkey]

Hey, Peacegirl. Look at these astute and perceptive questions which cannot just be ignored...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, do you understand why photons can't have come from somewhere they have never been?

Do you understand why traveling photons can't be traveling photons if they have never traveled?

Do you realize that this is your account I am talking about, and not the afferent one?

[Florence Jellem]

Good news, boys. The pace of this thread has picked up nicely, and over at Fivethirtyeight.com, Nate Silver is forecasting that there is an 89.1 percent chance that the parties will begin here on Sept. 10 – five days sooner than the previous forecast.

If everyone would just make moar poasts, we can move the date up even sooner. Keep that in mind, boys.

Here are some questions to ask peacegirl to generate moar poasts and get to the parties quicker:

1. Can you spell “cat”?
2. Why is the sky blue?
3. Larry, Jim, Charlie and Harry each have access to a precious, precious cunt. How many precious, precious cunts do they have access to in total?

Incidentally, Flo may be able to book for the parties amphetamine-gobbling dwarfs who constantly bounce around in ecstasy. Here they are:



Do you boys think these dwarfs would be a good fit for the parties? Let Flo know.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

3. Larry, Jim, Charlie and Harry each have access to a precious, precious cunt. How many precious, precious cunts do they have access to in total?

You've discovered THE method for getting the younger generation on board -- Decline and Fall of All Evil story problems! Children LOVE story problems! Translucent fuck robes and perfectly cooked spaghetti and meatballs every Monday night, here we come!

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hey, Peacegirl. Look at these astute and perceptive questions which cannot just be ignored.
Peacegirl, do you understand why photons can't have come from somewhere they have never been?

Do you understand why traveling photons can't be traveling photons if they have never traveled?

No one is committing such an error.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you realize that this is your account I am talking about, and not the afferent one?

You are trying to make his claim work without having to make the claim that the eyes are not a sense organ. I appreciate your effort but I will stick to his claim because I don't think your model would cause the kind of conditioning that we see across the board.

[peacegirl]

Duplicate