A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

It occures to me that mans knowledge of good and evil does not come from religion/mythology, but that religion/mythology comes, at least in part, from the knowledge of good and evil.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that is what the argument has been about. Whether seeing efferently violates the laws of physics.

We've been arguing about real time seeing and whether THAT violates physics.

If no brain is required to acquire information, and you're using this to defend afferent vision, how is that possible?

Because the eyes acquire the information. How that information is processed or used is secondary.

To see afferently, don't you need a brain?

Nope, we humans need a brain to interpret incoming information, but a camera can gather the same information sans brain, right.

But none of these examples have anything to do with our discussion on afferent or efferent vision.

Actually whether vision is efferent or afferent should have anything to do with relativity at all, as I said some time back.

Unfortunately Lessans chose to make claims about instantaneous information conveyance, by stating that we see in real time, which is where SR comes in.

He could have left it at the brain seeing out through the eyes and not made claims about time, but he didn't leave it at that

I have only been arguing about information acquirement for weeks

Animals with no brain cannot see,

They do not see the same way that mammals do, but they do see. They can react to the world around them based on the information received through their eyes.

Case Study #9

Each rhopalium has six eyes-four simple eyes and two complex eyes. The simple eyes, called ocelli, are capable of light and dark detection. The complex eyes, one small and one large, have a cornea, lens, and retina of ciliated photoreceptors. The large eye is directed laterally in toward the center of the bell, and the small complex eye is directed upward toward the apex of the bell.

so what's the point of these examples except to show that acquiring "information" is different from "understanding" information.

Are you serious? The point I have been trying to make all along is that acquiring information cannot be done instantaneously. You're the one that keeps bringing extraneous shit like understanding into it because you refuse to concede the very simple and basic fact all along. I never once mentioned "understanding"

What do yo think we're been arguing about for weeks on end regarding information?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But none of these examples have anything to do with our discussion on afferent or efferent vision. Animals with no brain cannot see, so what's the point of these examples except to show that acquiring "information" is different from "understanding" information.

Poor little planaria. Hardly a brain, just a ganglia of nerves, and yet it can detect the presence and absence of light. It's amazing how not being able to understand what it sees still gives it a survival advantage.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said earlier, the creature might be having a reflexive reaction that was there to help protect him survive, but you can't say that the protective changes that occurred (which were probably an evolutionary reaction) had anything to do with his ability to acquire information.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

A brain is not a necessity for acquisition of information. Nor is it necessary that the entity acquiring the information has any appreciation whatsoever regarding the significance of that information. You're confusing the terms "information" and "understanding." They do not mean the same thing.

Once again, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. If you believe that efferent sight violates the laws of physics, then you will strongly disagree with me. But I have a problem with your definition, therefore, we're not going to agree. I respect your right to disagree.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Once again, you don't get to determine what the definition of "information" is in either Information Theory or Special Relativity.

It's not that I get to do anything. I just don't think efferent vision violates any laws of physics, and I don't think Einstein would have had a problem with the definition, because nothing is being transmitted faster than the speed of light.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If you have a problem with the theory and the fact that it is incompatible with your model of sight, take it up with Einstein.

I would if I could, and I'm sure if he was my father's contemporary, they would have made great friends and would have respected each other's work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Yes, "predict."

I predict that no one is going to read the book with the the sincerity required for true understanding. What ashame.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Sorry but I must disagree, Evil is strictly a term that relates to Humans.
If you eliminate 'Evil' you eliminate humanity and human consciousness, we are reduced to animals acting on instinct and physical needs only. Evil has no meaning in nature, except where man has intervened. Only Humans are aware that some things are good and some bad, Only humans are aware of evil.

Animals don't normally hurt other animals unless it's for survival. The only difference is that humans kill for reasons other than survival. You can't compare the animal kingdom with the human kingdom because humans have the capability of higher order thinking and can change what they don't like, whereas animals act strictly on instinct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The only challenge is to understand life as it is and embrace it and live. To deny that evil is part of life is to retreat from life and to die, if not physically, then spiritually.

Who's denying that evil (hurt) doesn't exist? If that were true, then we wouldn't be looking for solutions. That doesn't even make sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It occures to me that mans knowledge of good and evil does not come from religion/mythology, but that religion/mythology comes, at least in part, from the knowledge of good and evil.

True. Religion came out of a need to make sense of the world, because there was so much evil. When God delivers us from all evil, what will be the purpose of religion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that is what the argument has been about. Whether seeing efferently violates the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We've been arguing about real time seeing and whether THAT violates physics.

And it doesn't.

If no brain is required to acquire information, and you're using this to defend afferent vision, how is that possible?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because the eyes acquire the information. How that information is processed or used is secondary.

This is not just about the acquisition of information. It's about the direction in which the brain gets information. Direction is the operative word here. We're losing focus on what this discussion is about. If there is no information transfer, then efferent vision does not defy the laws of physics. You are stretching the definition so that it appears as if efferent vision is violating a physical law, which it isn't.

To see afferently, don't you need a brain?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, we humans need a brain to interpret incoming information, but a camera can gather the same information sans brain, right.

But this still doesn't prove that efferent vision is inaccurate. This line of thinking actually supports it because that would mean that the eyes can look at information (the external world) without that information having to travel anywhere. We're talking about transmission, which involves time, and there is nothing being transmitted.

But none of these examples have anything to do with our discussion on afferent or efferent vision.

Actually whether vision is efferent or afferent should have anything to do with relativity at all, as I said some time back.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unfortunately Lessans chose to make claims about instantaneous information conveyance, by stating that we see in real time, which is where SR comes in.

There is a large disconnect here, and I don't think we're going to be able to overcome it. We are not talking about convenance. I already told you that we can see light (information) that has traveled from point A to point B. We can see the light from a laser pen that has traveled 50 yds away to point B. This does involve transfer of information. But that is not in contradiction with efferent vision. That's where the disconnect is.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He could have left it at the brain seeing out through the eyes and not made claims about time, but he didn't leave it at that

I have only been arguing about information acquirement for weeks

When we're looking at something efferently, there IS no time involved. We open our eyes, and we see. Our acquisition (which is a confusing term) of information does not require any transmission, conveyance, transfer, or travel time. I have also been arguing about information acquirement for weeks as well LadyShea.

Animals with no brain cannot see,

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They do not see the same way that mammals do, but they do see. They can react to the world around them based on the information received through their eyes.

It's all in the definition LadyShea. If you consider an animal seeing because he is reacting to light particles as a survival mechanism, I guess you could consider that seeing. That's another big stretch of the definition.

sight

1. the act or faculty of vision, involving the eye itself, the visual center in the brain, and the optic nerve and nerve fibers in the brain that connect the two.
2. a thing seen.

Case Study #9

Each rhopalium has six eyes-four simple eyes and two complex eyes. The simple eyes, called ocelli, are capable of light and dark detection. The complex eyes, one small and one large, have a cornea, lens, and retina of ciliated photoreceptors. The large eye is directed laterally in toward the center of the bell, and the small complex eye is directed upward toward the apex of the bell.

It's interesting to note they have photoreceptors that are not capable of converting into anything because they have no brain, yet they have a function. Obviously, they don't have an optic nerve either. That actually supports efferent vision in the sense that our photoreceptors could also have a purpose without the light making the conversion into electro-chemical signals, which is the present theory.

so what's the point of these examples except to show that acquiring "information" is different from "understanding" information.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you serious? The point I have been trying to make all along is that acquiring information cannot be done instantaneously. You're the one that keeps bringing extraneous shit like understanding into it because you refuse to concede the very simple and basic fact all along. I never once mentioned "understanding".

I made a distinction that we could see information (images and objects) instantly because it takes no time if efferent vision is true. Understanding what those objects or images mean do take time, which is why I made that distinction. A rhopalium has eyes to detect light, which is either present or not present. There is no time involved.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do yo think we're been arguing about for weeks on end regarding information?

The same thing I've been arguing about. Definition.

[Vivisectus]

...and yet the information "there is a man holding up a sign on earth" arrives at Rigel 800 years before light can reach it in the efferent model, which is impossible according to special relativity and still leads to a paradox.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...and yet the information "there is a man holding up a sign on earth" arrives at Rigel 800 years before light can reach it in the efferent model, which is impossible according to special relativity and still leads to a paradox.

There is no light that contains this information IF sight is efferent, therefore there is no paradox Vivisectus, and if you don't see this, it probably is because of my inability to explain it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no light that contains this information IF sight is efferent, therefore there is no paradox Vivisectus, and if you don't see this, it probably is because of my inability to explain it.

It makes no difference if light is involved or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It makes no difference if light is involved or not.

Really?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True. Religion came out of a need to make sense of the world, because there was so much evil. When God delivers us from all evil, what will be the purpose of religion?

So when we have eliminated all evil, man will no longer need religion, and without religion there will be no need for God? So God is fired and is out of work, more unemployment, How much will it cost to pay God's unemployment benefits? And all those Angles, Satan, or is it Satin?, and all those pesky little demons running loose with nothing to do?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I predict that no one is going to read the book with the the sincerity required for true understanding. What ashame.

That's right. No one -- no one here, anyway -- is going to turn off his or her brains and become an idiot like you to read this rubbish. That's what you mean by "sincerity" -- becoming a credulous idiot. What you don't understand, and probably cannot understand because of your indoctrination, is that even those readers who are willing to read on after the very poor discussion of free will/determinism, are going to laugh out loud (as I did) when they encounter the idiot's discussion of the sun, moon, seeing, Rigel, Columbus, etc. As soon as they encounter those passages they will rightly write off Lessans as a crackpot, and it is very unlikely they will read on unless it is for the lulz (and there are lulz here, just unintended).

You need to find dumb people to try to peddle this to. That's your only hope of success.

[LadyShea]

The claim about the brain looking out through the eyes- "the direction we see" -isn't a part of the relativity discussion.

The claim that we in real time, that we gain information instantly, is the point of the relativity discussion.

Sight:
VERB:
tr.
1. To perceive with the eyes;

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So when we have eliminated all evil, man will no longer need religion, and without religion there will be no need for God? So God is fired and is out of work, more unemployment, How much will it cost to pay God's unemployment benefits? And all those Angles, Satan, or is it Satin?, and all those pesky little demons running loose with nothing to do?

Doc, I was going to answer you but I see you are making a mockery of me. So forget it. Be careful because you are in line to be ignored.

[ChuckF]

OH SHI- are we almost in the public ignore list phase?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The claim about the brain looking out through the eyes- "the direction we see" -isn't a part of the relativity discussion.

The claim that we in real time, that we gain information instantly, is the point of the relativity discussion.

Only if we're on the same page, which we aren't. There is nothing relative about seeing efferently. But we can see a different perspective, relative to our position, that affects how we see that object or image. Of course, you fail to understand this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

OH SHI- are we almost in the public ignore list phase?

Yes, are you the parole officer to report to?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really?

Yeah, really.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes

Awesome. So the thing to do is to actually put the names of the people you are ignoring in your signature. This is called signore, which is spelled like the Italian word, but pronounced like "ignore" with an s- in front of it. Other highly successful posters have used this to great effect. See generally Newb R. 5.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, I was going to answer you but I see you are making a mockery of me. So forget it. Be careful because you are in line to be ignored.

Do you honestly believe that anyone gives a shit if Your Royal Highness puts him or her on Ignore?

Like your father, your delusions of grandeur are boundless. But then, you are a chip off the old blockhead.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only if we're on the same page, which we aren't. There is nothing relative about seeing efferently. But we can see a different perspective, relative to our position, that affects how we see that object or image. Of course, you fail to understand this.

There is nothing to understand. It is moronic, incoherent and wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

That's right. No one -- no one here, anyway -- is going to turn off his or her brains and become an idiot like you to read this rubbish. That's what you mean by "sincerity" -- becoming a credulous idiot. What you don't understand, and probably cannot understand because of your indoctrination, is that even those readers who are willing to read on after the very poor discussion of free will/determinism,

Oh really? Prove that it's a very poor discussion David, or who will look like an idiot?

Originally Posted by davidm

are going to laugh out loud (as I did) when they encounter the idiot's discussion of the sun, moon, seeing, Rigel, Columbus, etc. As soon as they encounter those passages they will rightly write off Lessans as a crackpot, and it is very unlikely they will read on unless it is for the lulz (and there are lulz here, just unintended).

So why are you here? To make fun of? I don't get it. I would leave a thread that wasn't wasting my time in a nano-second. So why aren't you doing this? I don't get you David.

Originally Posted by davidm

You need to find dumb people to try to peddle this to. That's your only hope of success.

No, it's not finding dumb people; it's about removing the blocks that are causing a dislike for this knowledge.