A revolution in thought - Page 264

Crumb · #**6576** 06-17-2011, 10:16 PM

So why can't the brain see in the dark? :chin:

LadyShea · #**6577** 06-17-2011, 10:18 PM

Quote:

There is no information entering the eyes. That would mean information transmission, which would entail time. The eyes see

What is seeing if not acquiring information about the object being seen? Without information acqirement your brain would have nothing to process. The eyes see the color, shape, size, distance, speed, movement etc.

Without the eyes acquiring information (does visual data work better for you instead of information which seems to confuse you?) you would not be seeing no matter how well your brain is working. Blind people cannot use their eyes to gather visual data therefore they can't see. If it is totally dark the eyes cannot be used to gather visual data and the person in the dark cannot see.

peacegirl · #**6578** 06-17-2011, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Poor Einstein. It's a shame he didn't know what he was talking about when he was describing what information is, and how it cannot travel between two points in less time than it would take for light to travel that distance, Isn't it?

Quote:

There isn't anything traveling between two points in efferent vision. Why can't you get this Lone? Don't answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Because you yourself have freely stated that seeing is transfer of information from the source to the eyes. You even (correctly) stated that it was "obviously" so.

If I said this, then what I said was wrong. I have said repeatedly that there is no transfer, transmission, conveyance, entering, sending, dispatching, or traveling in efferent vision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Except, of course, when it's pointed out to you that this necessarily means that instantaneous vision violates Special Relativity. Then you start claiming that there is no transfer of information.

It would if there was information transfer. But there's not, so it doesn't breach the laws of Special Relativity.

davidm · #**6579** 06-17-2011, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Poor Einstein. It's a shame he didn't know what he was talking about when he was describing what information is, and how it cannot travel between two points in less time than it would take for light to travel that distance, Isn't it?

There isn't anything traveling between two points in efferent vision. Why can't you get this Lone? Don't answer.

THEN HOW THE FUCK DO WE SEE? MAGIC?

Oh, that's right, you've already said repeatedly:

"I DON'T KNOW."

:lol:

davidm · #**6580** 06-17-2011, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would if there was information transfer. But there's not, so it doesn't breach the laws of Special Relativity.

There is no information transfer, asshat? So when you learn that the sun is turned on, whereas before it was turned off, have you, or have not, acquired information, airhead?

:lol:

peacegirl · #**6581** 06-17-2011, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

There is no information entering the eyes. That would mean information transmission, which would entail time. The eyes see

What is seeing if not acquiring information about the object being seen? Without information acqirement your brain would have nothing to process. The eyes see the color, shape, size, distance, speed, movement etc.

We're back to square one. It's the logic coming from different premises that is causing all kinds of confusion, and it will continue until more empirical studies are done. Who is right is yet to be seen. I have said that seeing is not processing. Whether the information is traveling in light, or whether we see directly, the results are the same because the brain ends up processing the images.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Without the eyes acquiring information (does visual data work better for you instead of information which seems to confuse you?) you would not be seeing no matter how well your brain is working. Blind people cannot use their eyes to gather visual data therefore they can't see. If it is totally dark the eyes cannot be used to gather visual data and the person in the dark cannot see.

I agree with you. What confuses me is not the word "information", it's the phrase "information transmission". We see things in our everyday environment that have to be interpreted. Most things we see we immediately recognize and understand because these objects and images are already in our mental data base. We need both the eyes to see, and the brain to interpret. If we were sea creatures with no brain, we could use the data coming from the light as it strikes the eye in a very limited way, but this still doesn't negate the possibility of efferent vision.

peacegirl · #**6582** 06-17-2011, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

So why can't the brain see in the dark? :chin:

Because there's no light present. Hello, anybody there? :doh:

Crumb · #**6583** 06-17-2011, 10:38 PM

But I thought the brain saw it directly?

ChuckF · #**6584** 06-17-2011, 10:40 PM

lol I keep expecting this efferent vision nonsense to get less entertaining but it never does.

Hey guys did you know that smell is efferent?

davidm · #**6585** 06-17-2011, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

So why can't the brain see in the dark? :chin:

Because there's no light present. Hello, anybody there? :doh:

Wow, the condescending arrogance of this ignorant little twat. :lol:

WHY is light a condition of seeing, asshat, if light carries no information to the eye? Why is light needed AT ALL? And, since light IS needed, according to you, then why are we able to see the sun IMMEDIATELY when it is turned on, if its light doesn't reach us for eight and a half minutes? Why is that, airhead?

God, you are fucking stupid.

peacegirl · #**6586** 06-17-2011, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it's a difference of 800 years. But wouldn't you want to know, or at least find out, if this model of sight could be wrong? Remember, I'm not saying we wouldn't see the light after it has traveled from point A to point B. But if we are looking at the light source directly, we would see it in real time. I can see the moon in real time, and can also see the moon's image in a pinhole camera that took a finite time to get there.

You are saying that we see with our eyes imediately and the camera sees after a delay when the light arrives?

No doc.

Can you explain the apparent contradiction.

There is no contradiction. We have to begin with the premise that we see efferently. If that's true, then it follows that what we see is large enough, bright enough, or close enough to allow sight to occur, which are the requirements for real time vision. If those requirements are met, then a camera would be able to take a picture of the same object or image. The only difference is that in a camera, the development of a picture would be directly the result of lightwaves hitting the film and causing a chemical reaction, whereas we would be seeing the actual object or image efferently, which means that the light would not be sending us the image, as it does in a camera; instead, we would be seeing the object or image directly due to light's presence.

Crumb · #**6587** 06-17-2011, 10:43 PM

Quote:

The only difference is that the development of a picture would be directly the result of lightwaves hitting the film and causing a chemical reaction, whereas we would be seeing the actual object or image directly.

So why would we need light if we can see without light waves hitting our eyes?

peacegirl · #**6588** 06-17-2011, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

But I thought the brain saw it directly?

peacegirl · #**6589** 06-17-2011, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

Quote:

The only difference is that the development of a picture would be directly the result of lightwaves hitting the film and causing a chemical reaction, whereas we would be seeing the actual object or image directly.

So why would we need light if we can see without light waves hitting our eyes?

Because light is a necessary condition to see anything in the external world. Without light, we'd be in the dark. But in the case of efferent vision, light is a condition of sight, not a cause of sight. In other words, nothing from the lightwaves are striking the eye and being converted into an image, if Lessans is correct.

davidm · #**6590** 06-17-2011, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

Quote:

The only difference is that the development of a picture would be directly the result of lightwaves hitting the film and causing a chemical reaction, whereas we would be seeing the actual object or image directly.

So why would we need light if we can see without light waves hitting our eyes?

Because light is a necessary condition to see anything in the external world. Without light, we'd be in the dark. But in the case of efferent vision, light is a condition of sight, not a cause of sight. In other words, nothing from the lightwaves are striking the eye and being converted into an image, if Lessans is correct.

Then what is the actual MECHANISM of seeing, asshat, and WHY is light a necessary condition for it?

:lol:

peacegirl · #**6591** 06-17-2011, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

lol I keep expecting this efferent vision nonsense to get less entertaining but it never does.

Hey guys did you know that smell is efferent?

Well golly gee, I may have to explore that idea further. :chin:

Stephen Maturin · #**6592** 06-17-2011, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Hey guys did you know that smell is efferent?

It's true. Our brains project stench onto turds of undeniable substance. :yup:

ChuckF · #**6593** 06-17-2011, 10:55 PM

Yeah really it is. We smell objects directly, in real time.

Do you accept this as the truth?

Stephen Maturin · #**6594** 06-17-2011, 10:56 PM

Yes. Your reasoning is flawless.

davidm · #**6595** 06-17-2011, 10:59 PM

That astute observation is an undeniable truth, Chuck.

Can you expand on it? Does it have any implications for having sex on the dinner table?

ChuckF · #**6596** 06-17-2011, 11:03 PM

Because the brain smells directly, without any transfer of information, the obedient wife may be permitted to perceive and glorify her husband's manly cock-stank in real time. This is a revolution in thought.

Warning! A person may become gay.

davidm · #**6597** 06-17-2011, 11:05 PM

This is undeniably true. There must be a two-sided equation here somewhere.

Stephen Maturin · #**6598** 06-17-2011, 11:10 PM

Brilliant! Undeniable! Astute!

I would only add that efferent smelling also allows a husband to discern instantaneously whether tonight's spaghetti and meatballs will be any goddamn good and/or whether the wife is ... er ... ripe ... for a bit of rumpeh pumpeh. Such non-information is vital to determining the appropriate time to leave for the beer garden.

thedoc · #**6599** 06-17-2011, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We gain understanding because of how the brain processes that information. What is the difference whether I see the information (efferent vision) and then process it, or receive the information through the optic nerve (afferent vision), and then process it?

So in either form of vision we are seeing/receiving information?

In either form of vision the brain processes the information.

That is not what I asked, why are you dodging the question?

I didn't dodge the question; I just didn't answer the question the way you wanted.

You didn't answer the question at all, you answered a different question, what's so hard to understand about that?

LadyShea · #**6600** 06-17-2011, 11:23 PM

Quote:

We're back to square one. It's the logic coming from different premises that is causing all kinds of confusion,

No, it is the fact that you will not commit to any normal or rational definitions and are purposefully trying to obfuscate the whole issue to make it confusing. Nobody except you is confused here.

Visual data is information about an object that is outside of your body and so exists at another point in space- and therefore information has traversed between two points in space.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Without the eyes acquiring information (does visual data work better for you instead of information which seems to confuse you?) you would not be seeing no matter how well your brain is working. Blind people cannot use their eyes to gather visual data therefore they can't see. If it is totally dark the eyes cannot be used to gather visual data and the person in the dark cannot see.

I agree with you. What confuses me is not the word "information", it's the phrase "information transmission".

What exactly do you think it is the brain is processing? It's processing information, or data about and from the object being seen. This consists of all the visual aspects of the object. How does that information get to your brain for processing? Through your eyes. If this was not the case, there would be no necessary conditions, like light, for seeing things.

Therefore information has to somehow, some way get from the object to your eyes. If you "see" it, fine, that is still input of information from a point outside your body-at some other point in space

I know you are not stupid, so you must be purposefully misunderstanding. I have been as clear as humanly possible.