A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave his reasons many times. It has to do with how the brain becomes conditioned, which could not occur if images were being interpreted from chemical-electrical signals.

We have no reason to believe that Lessans' description of of how mental conditioning works is correct. Therefore, we have no reason to think that mental conditioning requires vision to be efferent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was explaining how conscience functions, and this was not his opinion.

Yes, it was his opinion. It may, or may not, be correct, but it is clearly just an opinion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If his observation is correct, the way conscience works is absolutely 100% supported.

If his observation is not correct, then his claims about the conscience will remain mere opinion. As it stands now, we have been given no reason to believe that his observation was correct. Therefore, his claims regarding the conscience deserve to be treated as mere expressions of his opinion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just trying to grapple with the questions posed to figure out how efferent sight would work in reference to those questions.

You are doing so unsuccessfully for the simple reason that efferent vision conflicts with how vision actually functions. You will continue to fail in this endeavor because square pegs do not fit into round holes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to accept his premises to read the book, otherwise you won't get past page 5, which you haven't.

Accepting Lessans' premises, when they contradict what we believe we know to be true, requires that we willingly suspend our disbelief. Willing suspension of disbelief is an appropriate method for reading works of fantasy fiction. Whether you realize it or not, you are suggesting that we read Lessans' book as if it were a work of fantasy fiction.

[The Lone Ranger]

Since this seems to be the highest level that peacegirl is capable of comprehending, let me quote from the article on "Special Relativity" on an online encyclopedia for children called Kids.Net.au.

"The most practical implication of this theory is that it puts an upper limit to the laws (see Law of Nature) of Classical Mechanics and gravity formed by Isaac Newton at the speed of light. Nothing carrying mass or information can move faster than this speed."

<snip>

"Special relativity is now universally accepted by the physics community ..."

Emphasis added.

Note that information must be carried from Point A to Point B -- it does not just magically appear in brains or cameras or whatever. And SR theory very explicitly states that the information cannot travel from Point A to Point B in less time than it would take for light to travel that distance -- by any means.



Of course, this has been pointed out to her before, by several different people. So she'll surely either ignore this inconvenient truth once again, or deny it outright -- as if she knows more about SR than Einstein himself did.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, that is not what is meant. Are you purposefully misunderstanding?

According to relativity, and also causality FYI (so two principles of physics you are dealing with) information of any kind cannot be conveyed between two points instantaneously by any means. According to relativity there is no such thing as real time, at all. According to causality there is no possibility of simultaneity of the cause and the effect. In the case of seeing the cause is the object existing and having properties and the effect is gaining knowledge of the properties and existence of said object that is being seen. It doesn't matter what the information is, it doesn't matter what the two points are (an object being seen and the brain doing the seeing are two points).

I already told you that there is nothing being transmitted, or conveyed, so this really doesn't relate to the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity states that information cannot be obtained faster than the speed of light. You are using this definition very loosely. I agree that if you use this reasoning, you will conclude that real time seeing is impossible because information can't be conveyed instantaneously. But if nothing is being conveyed (only seen; which is instantaneous), then real time seeing is possible. Seeing an object is not receiving information until that information is at the point of being processed by the brain (which is time related). At that point, the brain would be doing the same thing it would do if it was interpreting images from signals, or seeing images in real time. This does not contradict the theory of relativity of simultaneity. If the lightsource (e.g., lightning) is causing a person to see an object or image relative to his position differently than someone seeing that object or image from another position, efferent vision does not negate this phenomenon, and this phenomenon does not negate efferent vision. Sorry.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know this is off topic, but I found an interesting overview of the history of medicine, and I'd like to share it.

The History of Medicine:

2000 BC

Here, eat this root.

1000 BC

That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer.

1805 AD

That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion.

1940 AD

That potion is snake oil. Here, swallow this pill.

1985 AD

That pill is ineffective. Here, take this antibiotic.

2000 AD

That antibiotic doesn't work anymore. Here, eat this root...

Author Unknown

If that were accurate, you might have a point.

As it is, though, it's somewhere between slander and outright lying.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that there is nothing being transmitted, or conveyed, so this really doesn't relate to relativity. You are using that term very loosely. I agree that if you use this reasoning, you will conclude that real time seeing is impossible because you can't convey something instantaneously. But if nothing is being conveyed (only seen; which is instantaneous), it then gets processed into information, which takes time. This does not contradict the theory of relativity in my opinion. If the lightsource (such as lightning) is causing one to see an object relative to his position, efferent vision does not negate this phenomenon.

Again, you're either lying outright or you're being idiotic.


"Seeing" is acquisition of information by definition. If you're seeing something, you're taking in information about it.


To take the hypothetical example Lessans used, when the Sun comes on, the information ("the Sun is now shining") originates with the Sun. You admitted this yourself. You even noted that it was obviously true.

When someone on Earth sees the light from the newly-ignited Sun, then just as obviously, his or her brain has acquired that information ("the Sun is now shining") -- by some means. It doesn't matter in the slightest how the information got from the Sun to his or her brain.


According to Lessans, the information ("the Sun is now shining") is acquired immediately.

According to Einstein, there is no way that the information can be acquired in less than 8.5 minutes.


They can't both be correct.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that there is nothing being transmitted, or conveyed, so this really doesn't relate to relativity.

Nothing is being conveyed, eh?

Hey, peacegirl. God turns on the sun at noon. According to Lessans, the people on earth see this happen in REAL TIME.

They suddenly learn that the sun has been turned on.

Is learning that the sun has been turned on, information, or not?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can only give you his careful observations. His observations didn't require that he have an exact mechanism, although it would have offered support for his claim. .

Then why don't you give us those 'careful observations' in some kind of detail as to what they were, where they were made, and how they were acquired by Lessans. And NO they were not in the book, only the assertion that they were made and his conclusions, not what the observations were.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave his reasons many times. It has to do with how the brain becomes conditioned, which could not occur if images were being interpreted from chemical-electrical signals.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

We have no reason to believe that Lessans' description of of how mental conditioning works is correct. Therefore, we have no reason to think that mental conditioning requires vision to be efferent.

I already explained this. The conditioning that takes place with the eyes cannot take place with the other senses. That's why it's not a sense organ.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was explaining how conscience functions, and this was not his opinion.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yes, it was his opinion. It may, or may not, be correct, but it is clearly just an opinion.

Wrong. That's like saying birds fly is an opinion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If his observation is correct, the way conscience works is absolutely 100% supported.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If his observation is not correct, then his claims about the conscience will remain mere opinion. As it stands now, we have been given no reason to believe that his observation was correct. Therefore, his claims regarding the conscience deserve to be treated as mere expressions of his opinion.

Then think of it as an opinon. I'm not going to give you what you want; empirical evidence through data collection -- and if that's what is required, and as a result you choose not to study these principles, then that would be like a student resigning from class. The only difference is that it isn't a required course.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just trying to grapple with the questions posed to figure out how efferent sight would work in reference to those questions.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are doing so unsuccessfully for the simple reason that efferent vision conflicts with how vision actually functions. You will continue to fail in this endeavor because square pegs do not fit into round holes.

So let it go for now. I myself am getting bored, so I can imagine how everyone else feels.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to accept his premises to read the book, otherwise you won't get past page 5, which you haven't.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Accepting Lessans' premises, when they contradict what we believe we know to be true, requires that we willingly suspend our disbelief. Willing suspension of disbelief is an appropriate method for reading works of fantasy fiction. Whether you realize it or not, you are suggesting that we read Lessans' book as if it were a work of fantasy fiction.

I already offered that as a suggestion. I said that if the only way to get you to read the book is to think of it as science fiction, then maybe that's a good way to approach it. At least you'll read it. Hopefully it will take the pressure off to critique this work (which is causing serious problems), and instead, enjoy it. If it's read the way the author intended it to be read, maybe an interesting discussion will follow. Otherwise, we're at a dead end.

[The Lone Ranger]

Boy, science sure is easy when one employs the Lessans Method.

Maybe I should have used that method. "I have observed 'X' and this proves 'Y'. No, I'm not going to bother to tell you about my methodology, nor am I going to share my data with you." I'll bet the evaluation committee would have been tremendously impressed.


My thesis and dissertation would have been a lot shorter, I can tell you that! Instead, I wasted all that time performing experiments, doing research, and gathering data. Silly me ...

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already offered that as a suggestion. I suggested that if the only way to read the book is to think of it as science fiction, then maybe that's a good way to approach it. At least it will get read, and it will take the pressure off. If it's read carefully, from beginning to end, maybe we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, we're at a dead end.

Oh, bugger off, you've said this "dead end" shit about a hundred times. And you never leave. And you keep lying. People have read the book, either in its entirety or substantially. People have quoted extensively from it. Reading the whole thing makes it even stupider. It is quite possibly the stupidest book ever written. Do you know why that reviewer called it "The Plan 9 From Outer Space of Books"? Because "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is widely conisdered to be the worst movie ever made. And you father quite possibly has written the worst book ever. It's full of stupid from first to last.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that there is nothing being transmitted, or conveyed, so this really doesn't relate to the theory of relativity. .
But if nothing is being conveyed (only seen; which is instantaneous), then real time seeing is possible. Seeing an object is not receiving information until that information is at the point of being processed by the brain (which is time related).

Then how does the brain, looking out thru the eyes, acquire the image, if the object is some distance away. How does the image get to the eyes, or how does the brain, thru the eyes, get the image, from a distant object that is large enough to see, well lit, and in the line of sight?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then why don't you give us those 'careful observations' in some kind of detail as to what they were, where they were made, and how they were acquired by Lessans. And NO they were not in the book, only the assertion that they were made and his conclusions, not what the observations were.

When I first read this book, I read it with innocence. It was only later that I had a million questions, and they were answered to my satisfaction. You have to read the book the way I read it as a teenager. I'm not saying to give up your critical thinking skills. I'm just asking you to put your belief that Lessans is wrong, on hold, long enough to read the book in its entirety (hopefully twice), in the order in which it was written. I promise you, you'll learn something, even if you aren't sure [yet] that his premises are without flaw, and therefore you would like to see more evidence. You have to meet me half way, or I can't keep on like this because it's draining not making any progress.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then think of it as an opinon. I'm not going to give you what you want; empirical evidence through data collection -- and if that's what is required, and as a result you choose not to study these principles, .

Because you do not have any evidence of any kind, nor do you have any data of any kind. Only opinions and wild speculation about something Lessans knew nothing about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then how does the brain, looking out thru the eyes, acquire the image, if the object is some distance away. How does the image get to the eyes, or how does the brain, thru the eyes, get the image, from a distant object that is large enough to see, well lit, and in the line of sight?

Through photoreceptors, and through light that is a necessary condition. Doc, I really don't want to answer anymore sight questions at this time. I need a break from this discussion. I'm sure you can understand why.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Because you do not have any evidence of any kind, nor do you have any data of any kind. Only opinions and wild speculation about something Lessans knew nothing about.

100% wrong, and I'm not going to say it again.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

then that would be like a student resigning from class. The only difference is that it isn't a required course.

This I can agree with, we are not students in this case, (though we are all students where real learning and knowledge are involved), this is not a class unless it is in 'Theatre of the Absured'. And there is no way by anyones warped and twisted imagination that you could in any way be considered a teacher, that would be an unspeakable insult to even the worst and most unqualified teacher in any school.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I need a break from this discussion. I'm sure you can understand why.

Actually, if you really wanted to shut us all up, you could find a problem with the current theory - "afferent vision" as you call it, then you could show how efferent vision might explain this problem better.

I'm really interested to hear one of your many examples of this.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just trying to grapple with the questions posed to figure out how efferent sight would work in reference to those questions.

And this is what should have been presented in the book, rather than you inventing, and twisting the words in the book and reality to make them fit each other. However it would be nice if you actually did try to make them fit with some kind of explination, rather than denying that they don't fit.

[davidm]

Star Trek

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.



































































The End

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

and I'm not going to say it again.

I do not believe that.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just asking you to put your belief that Lessans is wrong, on hold, long enough to read the book in its entirety (hopefully twice).

You want us to read the fucking thing twice??



Hey, peacegirl, did you read The Lone Ranger's essay on how we ACTUALLY see, even once? And it's only 35 pages long, with illustrations!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Through photoreceptors, and through light that is a necessary condition. Doc, I really don't want to answer anymore sight questions at this time. I need a break from this discussion. I'm sure you can understand why.

Another comletely meaningless reply from the airhead!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, I really don't want to answer anymore sight questions at this time. I need a break from this discussion. I'm sure you can understand why.

NO, You started this, now finish what you started, or admit that you and Lessans are WRONG.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just asking you to put your belief that Lessans is wrong, on hold, long enough to read the book in its entirety (hopefully twice), in the order in which it was written. I promise you, you'll learn something, even if you aren't sure [yet] that his premises are without flaw, and therefore you would like to see more evidence. You have to meet me half way, or I can't keep on like this because it's draining not making any progress.

I have read the book, many sections twice or more, and given the description, I was hoping for something good, but the writing was very confusing and the claims so outrageous that by the time I finished there could be only one conclusion, and that without further evidence, Lessans was wrong.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by davidm

Nothing is being conveyed, eh?

Hey, peacegirl. God turns on the sun at noon. According to Lessans, the people on earth see this happen in REAL TIME.

They suddenly learn that the sun has been turned on.

Is learning that the sun has been turned on, information, or not?

Hey, peacegirl, were you planning to answer the above question?