A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

According to Peacegirl, the brain looks out thru the eyes, and directly sees the image of the object that is in the field of vision, but this is not information till the image has been acquired (and the image is not information that goes from the source to the brain, and thus does not conflict with SR), and is only then after the brain processes the image that it becomes information. What a convoluted corruption of reality in a vain attempt to justify Lessans fantasy. Peacegirl has stepped completely outside the bounds of reality, and possably sanity, in her efforts to justify her fathers book and sell copies of this nonsense. She has twisted, and turned, and weaseled, and dogded, and ignored, so cleverly that there can be no doubt that she completely understands how everything works, this is the only way she could know just how to answer to keep from comitting an error, and revealing that she knows the truth but just wants to sell books. This thread has got to be on of the most extreme examples of obstrufication in existance, it will surely go into the record books of deliberate denial of what is known, just not admited.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

According to Peacegirl, the brain looks out thru the eyes, and directly sees the image of the object that is in the field of vision, but this is not information till the image has been acquired (and the image is not information that goes from the source to the brain, and thus does not conflict with SR), and is only then after the brain processes the image that it becomes information. What a convoluted corruption of reality in a vain attempt to justify Lessans fantasy. Peacegirl has stepped completely outside the bounds of reality, and possably sanity, in her efforts to justify her fathers book and sell copies of this nonsense. She has twisted, and turned, and weaseled, and dogded, and ignored, so cleverly that there can be no doubt that she completely understands how everything works, this is the only way she could know just how to answer to keep from comitting an error, and revealing that she knows the truth but just wants to sell books. This thread has got to be on of the most extreme examples of obstrufication in existance, it will surely go into the record books of deliberate denial of what is known, just not admited.

This is it exactly. She isn't very bright, but she is bright enough to know that her father's nonsense has been demonstrated conclusively to be wrong. She knows that. But she will not admit it because she hopes to pick up some spending loot from credulous buffoons who buy her shitwit father's absurd book. That is what this is all about.

[erimir]

She must not very bright if this is her attempt to make money. I don't think she's stupid enough to think that she's going to make any money by continuing to post here - if money making was really her main game, she would've moved on to greener pastures by now (for example, New Age healing websites).

She could've made more money working at McDonald's instead of posting here.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no clue. When I feel there is nothing is left for me to say, I'll be gone.

So what is there left to say?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by erimir

She must not very bright if this is her attempt to make money. I don't think she's stupid enough to think that she's going to make any money by continuing to post here - if money making was really her main game, she would've moved on to greener pastures by now (for example, New Age healing websites).

She could've made more money working at McDonald's instead of posting here.

In a way I think it is a kind of inertia, that she got started here and doesn't quite know how to stop. It becomes a mission to convince someone that she is right, and have an ally on her side, perhaps someone new would join the dialogue and be swayed to her side. There have been several other forums, that she claims the thread was closed down by the admin. but I know of one that was not closed but got way off topic and she left after 3 pages, the thread went another page without her, on something else. Sometimes these forums get to be a bad habit that you just can't stop looking at, and adding something. Some of her posts seem to be just to stir up more dialogue as if a longer thread will somehow lend her some king of credability, of which Lessans had established none. It's really a bit sad that she wastes so much time on such a lost cause, and hopelessly incorrect ideas, as presented in the book, her time could have been better spent with her family, and letting her fathers joke die a natural death. The poor man can't possably be resting easy in his grave.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

So what is there left to say?

For Peacegirl, only that she knew that this was a scam, and that her fathers work was nonsense from the begining. Everyone else have pretty much nailed things down, she either can't see, or won't admit it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not why I said it's not gonna happen. It's not gonna happen because I don't believe all the tests are in. I mean, seriously, have you ever seen a dog wag its tail in recognition when he sees a picture of his master? You don't need a dog to push a lever to prove that a dog is incapable of this. Why can't a dog recognize his master if the image is traveling to his eye? That's just one test of many that could cast some doubt as to whether afferent vision is true.

What twaddle - what would that prove? You are really clinging to straws now. We see the supernova - we photograph the supernova. However, it is lightyears away, so there should be a LOT of time between the two events.

Hey presto! Efferent vision is falsified.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You actually believe the test with the dog was valid? That's very telling.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

There have been literally thousands of experiments -- from the structure of the eye to the physiology of neurons to direct experimentation with vision -- which demonstrate that vision is not efferent.

You've been provided with many examples.

Where are they? Where are the experiments that prove, conclusively, that dogs can identify their masters through sight alone. I'd also like to see for myself the conclusive proof that photons are transduced into electro-chemical signals. Is that asking too much?

I'm just wondering how you know this definition is perfectly accurate?

Regardless, I hope we can agree to disagree and leave it at that, before this discussion gets even more nasty than it already is.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Because, you fool, you keep claiming that instantaneous, efferent vision does not violate Special Relativity. But it does violate Relativity, as information is defined in Relativity. Einstein was very, very clear on that, and nothing could possibly be more straightforward. And you'd know this if you'd take 30 minutes or so to educate yourself on the matter.

I can't go by that. I can only go by valid experiments, not just what somebody said, even if it was Einstein himself. I still believe there is some kind of misunderstanding. If you take that as an affront, I'm sorry. And please stop calling me names Lone Ranger. I am trying not to go to that level and call you a liar or a fool or an ignoramus in return. Does calling me names give you a feeling of power?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So you're either: lying outright, or demonstrating (yet again) that you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm just passing on a [theory]. Take it or leave it. The empirical tests don't lie.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Maybe you have some "special" definition of "information" that does not violate Special Relativity. Peachy. But it's fundamentally dishonest to claim that instantaneous vision does not violate SR as information is defined in SR.

If time itself is relative, then obviously it would violate it. But then we'd have to question whether this is true (God forbid you question Einstein's theories; you're an automatic heretic), or whether what we see is relative to our position.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where are they? Where are the experiments that prove, conclusively, that dogs can identify their masters through sight alone. I'd also like to see for myself the conclusive proof that photons are transduced into electro-chemical signals. Is that asking too much?

All of this is cleverly concealed in places called "libraries." With a little effort, you could probably locate and explore one. For best effect, go to a university library, which will have the best collection of science journals.

I can't go by that. I can only go by valid experiments, not just what somebody said, even if it was Einstein himself. I still believe there is some kind of misunderstanding.

There is, but it's all on your part. You could go visit one of those "libraries" and educate yourself on the matter. ...

If you take that as an affront, I'm sorry. And please stop calling me names Lone Ranger. I am trying not to go to that level and call you a liar or a fool or an ignoramus in return. Does calling me names give you a feeling of power?

I take your dishonesty and willful ignorance as an affront. And I'm a scientist; accuracy of description is important, and it's important to call a spade a spade.

I'm just passing on a [theory]. Take it or leave it. The empirical tests don't lie.

No, they don't. And they conclusively disprove efferent vision.

If time itself is relative, then obviously it would violate it. But then we'd have to question whether time itself is relative, or whether what we see is relative to our position.

Again, it has been repeatedly explained to you that time is relative. This is a repeatedly-demonstrated fact, and we actually have to take that fact into account when using GPS systems, for example; otherwise, they don't work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where are they? Where are the experiments that prove, conclusively, that dogs can identify their masters through sight alone. I'd also like to see for myself the conclusive proof that photons are transduced into electro-chemical signals. Is that asking too much?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

All of this is cleverly concealed in places called "libraries." With a little effort, you could probably locate and explore one. For best effect, go to a university library, which will have the best collection of science journals.

Are you kidding? You're placing the cart before the horse. You act like you're all knowing. I am here to tell you, you're not, even though I respect what you know as a teacher.

I can't go by that. I can only go by valid experiments, not just what somebody said, even if it was Einstein himself. I still believe there is some kind of misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

There is, but it's all on your part. You could go visit one of those "libraries" and educate yourself on the matter. ...

Once again, that's a total cop out. That's like saying the premise is correct before it is known to be correct. What are you trying to pull Lone? Tell me? Obviously, it's not about figuring out the truth; it's about being right at all costs.

If you take that as an affront, I'm sorry. And please stop calling me names Lone Ranger. I am trying not to go to that level and call you a liar or a fool or an ignoramus in return. Does calling me names give you a feeling of power?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I take your dishonesty and willful ignorance as an affront. And I'm a scientist; accuracy of description is important, and it's important to call a spade a spade.

I am not dishonest; you are. You are using me as someone as a comparison to elevate your own knowledge, even though your knowledge hasn't been conclusively proven. What a sham this whole thread has become.

I'm just passing on a [theory]. Take it or leave it. The empirical tests don't lie.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No, they don't. And they conclusively disprove efferent vision.

What empirical studies prove conclusively that this is true? Tell meeeeeeeeeeeee, and I'll concede?

If time itself is relative, then obviously it would violate it. But then we'd have to question whether time itself is relative, or whether what we see is relative to our position.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Again, it has been repeatedly explained to you that time is relative. This is a repeatedly-demonstrated fact, and we actually have to take that fact into account when using GPS systems, for example; otherwise, they don't work.

What this has to do with efferent vision, I have no idea. Please explain in more detail how this relates to what I am offering, otherwise I will consider this a strawman. You are the one who is changing the goalposts.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Maybe you have some "special" definition of "information" that does not violate Special Relativity. Peachy. But it's fundamentally dishonest to claim that instantaneous vision does not violate SR as information is defined in SR.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If time itself is relative, then obviously it would violate it. But then we'd have to question whether this is true (God forbid you question Einstein's theories; you're an automatic heretic), or whether what we see is relative to our position.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Again, it has been repeatedly explained to you that time is relative. This is a repeatedly-demonstrated fact, and we actually have to take that fact into account when using GPS systems, for example; otherwise, they don't work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What this has to do with efferent vision, I have no idea. Please explain in more detail how this relates to what I am offering, otherwise I will consider this a strawman. You are the one who is changing the goalposts.

Wow you flipflop a lot. And you even quote yourself doing it without seeing a problem. You admitted that instant vision violates relativity, but then decided to doubt special relativity itself to hold on to your idee fixe. Then some evidence is presented that confirms special relativity, and you pretend to have forgotten what it had to do with efferent vision.

Dodging, weaseling, even outright lying - typical fundy tactics. It really is a fantastic example of how people can weasel and beat around the bush in an attempt to disregard evidence, nomatter how idiotic and easily disproven the original idea is.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Shut up Lone.

What this has to do with efferent vision, I have no idea. Please explain in more detail how this relates to what I am offering, otherwise I will consider this a strawman. You are the one who is changing the goalposts.

Wow, could you possibly be any more wilfully dense? This has been explained to you REPEATEDLY, in many different ways.

Here is one basic, fundamental inconsistency between special relativity and your so-called "real-time" efferent seeing: special relativity, which you ignorantly claim doesn't conflict with real-time seeing, depends upon the postulate that the speed of light is finite and invariant in all inertial frames, AND THAT the light carries signals to the brain, which obviously then must be done in a finite time. So the very PILLAR upon with SR stands rules out your father's babbling.

BTW, were you going to answer any of my recent posts, or do you have me on Ignore again?

For starters you are now on tongue-tangled record as claiming that informatin both does, and does not, travel faster than light. Just like you are on record as saying that cameras both do, and do not, take pictures in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wow, could you possibly be any more wilfully dense? This has been explained to you REPEATEDLY, in many different ways.

Here is one basic, fundamental inconsistency between special relativity and your so-called "real-time" efferent seeing: special relativity, which you ignorantly claim doesn't conflict with real-time seeing, depends upon the postulate that the speed of light is finite and invariant in all inertial frames, AND THAT the light carries signals to the brain, which obviously then must be done in a finite time. So the very PILLAR upon with SR stands rules out your father's babbling.

BTW, were you going to answer any of my recent posts, or do you have me on Ignore again?

For starters you are now on tongue-tangled record as claiming that informatin both does, and does not, travel faster than light. Just like you are on record as saying that cameras both do, and do not, take pictures in real time.

It's you that's mixed up David. I know you can't believe it's possible because you're Einstein's protoge, so you're exempt from the possibility of being wrong. I get it all too well.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Einstein's protoge

Congratulations, davidm. Your search for a new custom user title is over!

[Vivisectus]

Yeah DavidM - shame on you for mindlessly parroting Einstein, despite the clear and abundant evidence that proves him wrong!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's you that's mixed up David. I know you can't believe it's possible because you're Einstein's protoge, so you're exempt from the possibility of being wrong. I get it all too well.

Hey, peacegirl, try this experiment, if your brain can bear it: Instead of declaring me to be "mixed up," why don't you show WHY I am "mixed up," hmm?

But you CAN'T. It's a FACT that the first postulate of special relativity ALREADY RULES OUT real-time seeing. So you have nothing to offer but "it's you that's mixed up."

Do you really think you are fooling anyone with this pathetic charade of yours?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd also like to see for myself the conclusive proof that photons are transduced into electro-chemical signals. Is that asking too much?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't go by that. I can only go by valid experiments, not just what somebody said, even if it was Einstein himself.

What criteria would you use to evaluate the validity of an experiment? What specialized knowledge or training do you have that qualifies you to make such an evaluation? What are the chances that you would recognize what you were seeing, even if you could observe the process? Would you recognize a photon, an electro-chemical reaction or the process of transduction? The problem, peacegirl, is not a lack of empirical evidence. The problem is your failure to recognize or understand the evidence that is presented to you. That you even understand the meaning of evidence is something that is in serious question. More explanation will not help because you either can't or won't understand what is explained to you. There are, as you have repeatedly demonstrated, none so blind as those who will not see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wow you flipflop a lot. And you even quote yourself doing it without seeing a problem. You admitted that instant vision violates relativity, but then decided to doubt special relativity itself to hold on to your idee fixe. Then some evidence is presented that confirms special relativity, and you pretend to have forgotten what it had to do with efferent vision.

Dodging, weaseling, even outright lying - typical fundy tactics. It really is a fantastic example of how people can weasel and beat around the bush in an attempt to disregard evidence, nomatter how idiotic and easily disproven the original idea is.

This whole thing boils down to which definition best describes reality. Until there is more empirical proof, you'll have to live with the uncertainty of not knowing for sure.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's you that's mixed up David. I know you can't believe it's possible because you're Einstein's protoge, so you're exempt from the possibility of being wrong. I get it all too well.

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, try this experiment, if your brain can bear it: Instead of declaring me to be "mixed up," why don't you show WHY I am "mixed up," hmm?

But you CAN'T. It's a FACT that the first postulate of special relativity ALREADY RULES OUT real-time seeing. So you have nothing to offer but "it's you that's mixed up."

Do you really think you are fooling anyone with this pathetic charade of yours?

You tell me this is a pathetic charade, yet you can't even offer me one reason why his definition of determinism is a modal fallacy? If you can make such a snap judgment with nothing to back it up, you hold no credibility in this area either.

[Vivisectus]

Ermmm... nope. There is wuite a lot of empirical proof, and you have been shown it. You just weasel, lie, and move the goalposts so you do not have to admit that it is

YouTube - ‪Dr Cox - Wrong Wrong...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd also like to see for myself the conclusive proof that photons are transduced into electro-chemical signals. Is that asking too much?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't go by that. I can only go by valid experiments, not just what somebody said, even if it was Einstein himself.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What criteria would you use to evaluate the validity of an experiment? What specialized knowledge or training do you have that qualifies you to make such an evaluation? What are the chances that you would recognize what you were seeing, even if you could observe the process? Would you recognize a photon, an electro-chemical reaction or the process of transduction? The problem, peacegirl, is not a lack of empirical evidence. The problem is your failure to recognize or understand the evidence that is presented to you.

I would need someone to show me the process of transduction from a photon to an electro-chemical signal. Am I suppose to take their word for it? No way jose. I want to be sure there could be no other logical explanation. So many times our answers seem reasonable; the only problem is that our reasonable answers turn out to be wrong.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That you even understand the meaning of evidence is something that is in serious question. More explanation will not help because you either can't or won't understand what is explained to you. There are, as you have repeatedly demonstrated, none so blind as those who will not see.

Here's Lessans in a discussion with Angakuk...

"Now be honest with yourself;
do you really know, or only think you know?"

"I don't really know; but think I know, and that should be enough," says Angakuk.

"If you will admit there
is just the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed with
the wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things
despite the high opinion you and others hold of yourselves; that the
expression the blind leading the blind could even pertain to you; I
know this is difficult for you to conceive; I say, if there is the slightest
possibility you could be mistaken and you are willing to admit this to
yourselves, then I cordially welcome your company aboard otherwise
you had better not read this book for my words are not meant for your
ears."

"I better not come aboard," replies Angakuk, "because this thread is a
perfect example of the blind leading the blind. Is there anyone in here
who isn't blind?"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ermmm... nope. There is wuite a lot of empirical proof, and you have been shown it. You just weasel, lie, and move the goalposts so you do not have to admit that it is.

Funny!!!! But it's you who is...

YouTube - ‪Dr Cox - Wrong Wrong...

[/QUOTE]

[Vivisectus]

Ah ok you have managed to find something we can see but not photograph then? Or any other piece of evidence for efferent sight? or even something that does not prove efferent sight, but poses a problem in the afferent model? Or maybe a mechanism by which efferent sight works?

No?

I must have the wrong definition of "wrong".

[erimir]

Originally Posted by erimir

I wanted you to answer those questions individually, because you have to be giving a different answer (denying one of the things I said) in order for you to deny that information is travelling faster than the speed of light. But you won't get specific and answer which part it is that you take issue with.

I didn't give a specific definition of information. I asked you whether the fact that I am an American human located in a particular place on Earth who is male and has pale skin counts as information. I didn't ask you to define information precisely, I just asked you whether that counted as information and/or whether you agree that an observer on Rigel is learning this and thus acquiring information when they look at me through a telescope.

I don't see the need for a very specific definition of information, because I think those kinds of facts about me would probably be considered information according to any normal definition of information.

So which part do you deny?

Do you deny that those facts are information? Do you deny that the observer on Rigel is learning that information? Do you think, perhaps, that the observer on Rigel already knew this information before they looked at me, or what? Your answer to one of those four questions has to be different from what would be expected.

Get specific, don't hide behind "I disagree with your definition of information" which I didn't even give in the first place and which you yourself have not defined.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, you claimed you wanted to know where to find the experiments that conclusively disprove efferent vision. I told you exactly where you can find them, with only a minimal effort on your part.

Your response? "Shut up" -- and thus you clearly demonstrate (as if there were any doubt remaining at this point) that you weren't actually interested in finding those experiments. Rarely is your fundamental dishonesty so directly expressed.


You know, if you're so keen to see the experiments done yourself, you could go back to school. Get a degree in physics; chances are good that during the process, you'll actually have to do some of the experiments which demonstrate that what and when we see is limited by the speed of light. Earn an advanced degree in the field and you'll almost certainly have to perform some of those experiments.

Earn a degree in anatomy and physiology and in the process you'll almost-certainly have to actually do some of the experiments which conclusively demonstrate that vision is afferent.

If you don't want to expend that much time and effort, you can still read the descriptions of these experiments. Some of the experiments are simple-enough that you can conduct them yourself.

If you're unwilling to invest that kind of effort -- and since you can't even be bestirred to consult a nearby library, I think we can all rest assured that this is the case -- then you have no basis for claiming that those of us who have done these experiments don't know what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you kidding? You're placing the cart before the horse. You act like you're all knowing. I am here to tell you, you're not, even though I respect what you know as a teacher.

First, you should at least show a little integrity and admit that you don't respect me or anyone else in the slightest -- not if we dare to point out that Lessans' claims are demonstrably false. The fact that you won't make even a minimal effort to educate yourself or to listen to what actual experts in relevant fields have to say demonstrates very clearly that you have no such respect, despite your claims.

More to the point, you asked where the evidence could be found that disproves efferent vision. I told you.

So it's more lying on your part to claim that I'm "placing the cart before the horse."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, that's a total cop out. That's like saying the premise is correct before it is known to be correct. What are you trying to pull Lone? Tell me?

Obviously, Logic 101 wasn't your best subject; neither was Communications 101. You asked where the evidence was. I told you. No cop-outs on my part. The fact that you've made it abundantly clear that you have no intention whatsover of educating yourself regarding the evidence means that you are copping out big-time, however.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not dishonest; you are. You are using me as someone as a comparison to elevate your own knowledge, even though your knowledge hasn't been conclusively proven.

Right. Because I insist on giving evidence for my claims, and because I've dared to point out that God Almighty Lessans' claims are demonstrably false, I'm being dishonest.

Incidentally, this may come as a shock to you, but my evaluation of my own understanding of subjects does not depend upon the opinions of someone who is fundamentally dishonest in her evaluation and representation of the data and who is -- by her own admission -- profoundly ignorant of the relevant evidence and theories.

Do you even pay attention to what you are writing?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just passing on a [theory]. Take it or leave it. The empirical tests don't lie.

What empirical studies prove conclusively that this is true? Tell meeeeeeeeeeeee, and I'll concede?

No you won't. You've been given examples -- many examples. You evade, ignore, weasel, and when necessary simply lie. What you absolutely won't do is admit that any of these studies -- no matter how carefully-conducted and how often-replicated they may be -- disprove efferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If time itself is relative, then obviously it would violate it. But then we'd have to question whether time itself is relative, or whether what we see is relative to our position.

Bull. You claimed that "If time itself is relative, then obviously it [instantaneous, efferent vision] would violate it [Special Relativity].

I pointed out that time is relative, and that this is not only easily demonstrated, we must take the fact into account in much of our modern technology.

No other response could have possibly been more relevant.