A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

[My emphasis.]

This is an important point. Among the many reasons we can be sure that the optic nerve is afferent and not efferent is that under normal circumstances a given neuron will only conduct impulses in one direction. That's a rather important factor in how the nervous system functions.

In other words, a given nerve cannot conduct impulses in both directions unless it has both afferent and efferent fibers. And the optic nerve doesn't. A nerve (such as the optic nerve, for example) that contains only afferent fibers can only conduct impulses toward the brain, not away from it.


Cheers,

Michael

I don't think this negates Lessans' observations. We are not talking about a nerve conducting impulses. We are talking about how the brain uses that information. In other words, does the brain decode the impulses to form an image in the brain, or does it use the information to see the external world as it appears in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

There is no "if," it is.

Non sequitur, but incorrect as well: you claimed he declared the optic nerve was efferent. This is wrong.

Period.

He and you are wrong.

Period.

The optic nerve and how it functions is not my expertise, and if I said something that was incorrect, I can admit that. The only thing Lessans was saying, and I'll repeat, is that the brain does not decode electrical impulses from the light itself to form an image of the outside world.

Light is not the cause of sight; it is a condition of sight.

I refuse to answer anymore questions regarding the eyes because. . . .

Originally Posted by Doctor X

You know you are wrong.

I don't know that, and you don't know that either at this point.

More empirical testing will be needed to discredit his theory (if you want to call it that).

Originally Posted by Doctor X

No. His theory is wrong. Period.

Your inability to provide evidence to the contrary further noted.

--J.D.

I am not providing evidence through empiricism, although this could be tested. It's is falsifiable. I am trying to show you what his observations were. Whether or not the eyes are a sense organ is not as important as the implications, because man, as a consequence of not understanding how the eyes work, never understood his relationship to the external world.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think this negates Lessans' observations.

What you think proves irrelevant to what is.

We are not talking about a nerve conducting impulses.

Ultimately, we are always discussing nerve cell activation, inhibition, and conduction

We are talking about how the brain uses that information. In other words, does the brain decode the impulses to form an image in the brain, or does it use the information to see the external world as it appears in real time.

Which is not what you stated of course, and, frankly, you show little understanding of how that happens given your serial erroneous claims. In fact, one should find it inconceivable that anyone with a basic reading comprehension skills mastered by the ape creatures of the Indus could read the merest introductory texts on the optic nerve and optic neural pathways and make the claims you have made.

Yet, to quote a venerable sergent-major from Éire:

There's no shame being born in the shite, lads, but there's ever so much for wanting to stay in it!

--Sgt. Maj. Patrick Harper, South Essex

Given your hitherto reaction to rebuttal, I fear you will spurn the Chosen Man's advice and retreat, like Simmerson before Fr. Curtis rather than actually learn something.

You have, thus far, on more than one board, failed to defend this, produce evidence for these claims, anything. Now, you can keep doing the same thing over and over again and get what you have always gotten--embarrassment and frustration along with a painful itching and swelling accompanied by loss of appetite and "feeling of impending doom"--or you can take advantage of the resources and learn.

Thus endeth the lesson. . . .

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You write as if your efforts to explain the ideas in this book are being sabotaged by people who "keep challenging the author's intent by pulling out excerpts in the middle before reading the beginning". This is simply not the case. Your ability to explain these ideas is in no way constrained by the actions of others. You are, in essence, blaming others for your failure to offer a succinct and coherent presentation of Lessens' theories. It is nothing more than excuse making. If Lessens' theories are correct, and if you were incorporating them in your own behavior, you would be indemnified against this sort of blaming and self-justifying behavior.

It would be different if this were some sort of panel discussion, where the other panelists were constantly interrupting your presentation with nit-picky little objections. However, that is not the case here. You are, were you willing to do so, quite at liberty to ignore your unruly interlocutors and get on with your explanation. You don't have to respond to every post and you don't have to let those posts impede your efforts at explaining Lessens' theories. That you choose to do so suggests, rather strongly, that you derive greater satisfaction from engaging in side-issues than you do from pursuing the main issue.

I appreciate what you just said. I'm not really blaming anyone or making excuses. In fact, I have been explaining his work but not in the two or more sentences that people expect. After showing why man's will is not free and why nothing can make man do anything against his will, I posted the last paragraph in Chapter One. No one seems to be interested in the discovery which is in Chapter Two. I said this before, even if you think this is all a sham, I cannot jeapordize his knowledge by breaking it down into parts. He explains so much in chapter two that if I were to just give you the two-sided equation without the knowledge that comes before, I would be cheating you because you would not get it.

As far as including Lessans' theories into my own behavior, I am not an island unto myself. It takes two to tango, me and everyone else. It must be applied on a global scale for it to have the enormous benefit that it is capable of. That being said, I do understand human behavior to a much greater extent than most people because of this knowledge, and it helps me because I can take a philosophical view to why things are the way they are knowing that things are going to change for the better in the not too distant future.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether or not the eyes are a sense organ. . . .

--J.D.

P.S. You know, if in a discussion with a physicist regarding my theories of Space-Time and how I can actually travel to Nimbus 9 to meet the Nymphomaniacs thereupon, if I keep writing "whether or not gravity is a force" I really cannot complain if he grabs me right there and starts assaulting me with a garlic press.

This is akin to a Creatard claiming "evolution is impossible" because "it violates Thermodynamic Laws!!!1!!"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

What you think proves irrelevant to what is.

Ultimately, we are always discussing nerve cell activation, inhibition, and conduction

Which is not what you stated of course, and, frankly, you show little understanding of how that happens given your serial erroneous claims. In fact, one should find it inconceivable that anyone with a basic reading comprehension skills mastered by the ape creatures of the Indus could read the merest introductory texts on the optic nerve and optic neural pathways and make the claims you have made.

Yet, to quote a venerable sergent-major from Éire:

Given your hitherto reaction to rebuttal, I fear you will spurn the Chosen Man's advice and retreat, like Simmerson before Fr. Curtis rather than actually learn something.

You have, thus far, on more than one board, failed to defend this, produce evidence for these claims, anything. Now, you can keep doing the same thing over and over again and get what you have always gotten--embarrassment and frustration along with a painful itching and swelling accompanied by loss of appetite and "feeling of impending doom"--or you can take advantage of the resources and learn.

Thus endeth the lesson. . . .

--J.D.

I have no problem learning, but I also think that he has something of significance. You never even asked me once how he came to his conclusions, because you don't really care. You just want to believe that the man was a kook and had no basis for his observations. Whatever!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by lessans

the first two chapters ... is a key that will unlock a door to the greatest treasure in the history of mankind ... the full significance and magnitude of this work ... there has never been, and will never be, another like it because of what is undeniably achieved

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans ... was not egotistical; he was not arrogant; and he was not self-congradulatory.

Originally Posted by Seraph

I will repeat because obviously people aren't reading the posts: IF it turns out that the claims he makes are true, and longlasting global peace is possible as a result of understanding our nature more fully, then this is not a laughing matter at all.

Originally Posted by Seraph

I am now looking into this trainwreck of a thread for its entertainment value. Lessan's opus and more so Peacegirl's defence of it are so grotesque that I find it as fascinating and difficult to avert my gaze from as it is to not stare at a grossly malproportioned person one might encounter somewhere in a public place.

You can view this thread for entertainment value, I really don't care. Have fun with it, but the truth is this knowledge is for real whether you see it or not. You were the one that pulled a sentence out of context. He wasn't talking about the new world. Punishing people for raising prices would be similar to punishing the banks for handing out unjustified loans, or for punishing a Maydoff for stealing people's life's savings. There was no mention of 'noncompliance' that was uttered by this man. You don't know what you are talking about Seraph. Do what you want but if you stick with me, maybe one day that frown will turn upside down.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

I am now looking into this trainwreck of a thread for its entertainment value. Lessan's opus and more so Peacegirl's defence of it are so grotesque that I find it as fascinating and difficult to avert my gaze from as it is to not stare at a grossly malproportioned person one might encounter somewhere in a public place.

Indeed, it is sort of Brandon without the Bimbos [Tm.--Ed.] and the racism.

She follows the same pattern of any other crank: rather than learn about the actual subjects she invested too much emotion into the suggestion she has discovered something "new." This "new," for the crank, can be anything from the benign--free energy, world peace, a cult/messiah--to the stupid--various conspiracy theories--to the dangerous--quackery like homeopathy, chelation therapy, Celine Dion--to the vile--Holocaust Denial, racism, Ann Coulter. Having invested emotion into the Stupid, the crank cannot bear to admit he is wrong. He cherry picks evidence to support his "new"--which rarely is "new," actually.

The crank assumes that those who do not agree must be "stupid," "part of the conspiracy," "Jewish," "Damned," "part of Them," and/or did not "study the New Gnosis [Tm.--Ed.]."

If I had a dime for everytime a creatard encouraged me to "just read the Bible" . . . I would have . . . a lot of dimes

In a way, the crank knows if they study reality--like actual physiology in peacegirl's case--they may end up losing their faith.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Now, Critical Thinkers [Time shares available.--Ed.] meet this challenge all of the time. Rather than choose the way of the crank and deny new information, they evaluate it, and alter understanding accordingly.

You are not evaluating Doctor X. You are the gatekeeper of all knowledge, as if I am dirtying science. You are the one making a rush to judgment and you fail to see it because your eyes are closed. That's why you are not altering your understanding, because you have none in this case.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

The "conversation" posters are having with peacegirl is the same you have with a Tw00fer, Holocaust Denier, Brandon when he was primarily trying to justify statutory rape, a Creationist, someone from Luxembourg, et cetera, just change the subjects.

--J.D.

You don't see this but you are just as biased as the people you are condemning. You are so cynical that you can't be objective. You have lost your ability to see people as individuals, which I have been charged for as well. You are putting me in a category of 'other cranks' and closing the door. That's why I felt the need to add this excerpt in the introduction. But I doubt if it will make a difference.

According to Richard Milton, in his book, “Alternative
Science, Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment,”
“We are living in a time of rising academic intolerance in which
important new discoveries in physics, medicine, and biology are
being ridiculed and rejected for reasons that are not scientific.
Something precious and irreplaceable is under attack. Our
academic liberty — our freedom of thought — is being threatened
by an establishment that chooses to turn aside new knowledge
unless it comes from their own scientific circles. Some academics
appoint themselves vigilantes to guard the gates of science against
troublemakers with new ideas. Yet science has a two thousand
year record of success not because it has been guarded by an
Inquisition, but because it is self-regulating. It has succeeded
because bad science is driven out by good; an ounce of
open-minded experiment is worth any amount of authoritative
opinion by self-styled scientific rationalists.

The scientific
fundamentalism of which these are disturbing signs is found today
not merely in remote provincial pockets of conservatism but at the
very top of the mainstream management of science on both sides
of the Atlantic. Human progress has been powered by the
paradigm-shattering inventions of many brilliant iconoclasts, yet
just as the scientific community dismissed Edison’s lamp,
Roentgen’s X-rays, and even the Wrights’ airplane, today’s
“Paradigm Police” do a better job of preserving an outdated mode
of thought than of nurturing invention and discovery. One way of
explaining this odd reluctance to come to terms with the new, even
when there is plenty of concrete evidence available, is to appeal to
the natural human tendency not to believe things that sound
impossible unless we see them with our own eyes — a healthy
skepticism. But there is a good deal more to this phenomenon than
a healthy skepticism. It is a refusal even to open our eyes to
examine the evidence that is plainly in view. And it is a
phenomenon that occurs so regularly in the history of science and
technology as to be almost an integral part of the process.

It seems
that there are some individuals, including very distinguished
scientists, who are willing to risk the censure and ridicule of their
colleagues by stepping over that mark. This book is about those
scientists. But, more importantly, it is about the curious social and
intellectual forces that seek to prohibit such research; those areas
of scientific research that are taboo subjects; about subjects whose
discussion is forbidden under pain of ridicule and ostracism. Often
those who cry taboo do so from the best of motives: a desire to
ensure that our hard-won scientific enlightenment is not corrupted
by the credulous acceptance of crank ideas and that the community
does not slide back into what Sir Karl Popper graphically called the
‘tyranny of opinion.’ Yet in setting out to guard the frontiers of
knowledge, some scientific purists are adopting a brand of
skepticism that is indistinguishable from the tyranny they seek to
resist.

These modern skeptics are sometimes the most unreflecting
of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of science impels
them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth. And this
raises the important question of just how we can tell a real crank
from a real innovator — a Faraday from a false prophet. Merely
to dismiss a carefully prepared body of evidence — however
barmy it may appear — is to make the same mistake as the crank.
In many ways cold fusion is the perfect paradigm of scientific
taboo in action. The high priests of hot fusion were quick to
ostracize and ridicule those whom they saw as profaning the sacred
wisdom. And empirical fact counted for nothing in the face of
their concerted derision.

The taboo reaction in science takes many distinct forms. At its
simplest and most direct, tabooism is manifested as derision and
rejection by scientists (and non-scientists) of those new discoveries
that cannot be fitted into the existing framework of knowledge.
The reaction is not merely a negative dismissal or refusal to
believe; it is strong enough to cause positive actions to be taken by
leading skeptics to compel a more widespread adoption in the
community of the rejection and disbelief, the shipping up of
opposition, and the putting down of anyone unwise enough to step
out of line by publicly embracing taboo ideas.

The taboo reaction
in such simple cases is eventually dispelled because the facts —
and the value of the discoveries concerned — prove to be stronger
than the taboo belief; but there remains the worrying possibility
that many such taboos prove stronger (or more valuable) than the
discoveries to which they are applied. In its more subtle form, the
taboo reaction draws a circle around a subject and places it ‘out of
bounds’ to any form of rational analysis or investigation. In doing
so, science often puts up what appears to be a well-considered,
fundamental objection, which on closer analysis turns out to be no
more than the unreflecting prejudices of a maiden aunt who feels
uncomfortable with the idea of mixed bathing. The penalty
associated with this form of tabooism is that whole areas of
scientific investigation, some of which may well hold important
discoveries, remain permanently fenced off and any benefits they
may contain are denied us.

Subtler still is the taboo whereby
scientists in certain fields erect a general prohibition against
speaking or writing on the subjects which they consider their own
property and where any reference, especially by an outsider, will
draw a rapid hostile response. Sometimes, scientists who declare
a taboo will insist that only they are qualified to discuss and reach
conclusions on the matters that they have made their own property;
that only they are privy to the immense body of knowledge and
subtlety of argument necessary fully to understand the complexities
of the subject and to reach the ‘right’ conclusion. Outsiders, on the
other hand, (especially non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to
think rationally or analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas
and are not privy to subtleties of analysis and inflections of
argument that insiders have devoted long painful years to
acquiring.

Once again, the cost of such tabooism is measured in
lost opportunities for discovery. Any contribution to knowledge
in terms of rational analysis, or resulting from the different
perspective of those outside the field in question, is lost to the
community. In its most extreme form scientific tabooism closely
resembles the behavior of a priestly caste that is perceived to be the
holy guardians of the sacred creed, the beliefs that are the object of
the community’s worship. Such guardians feel themselves
justified by their religious calling and long training in adopting any
measures to repel and to discredit any member of the community
who profanes the sacred places, words or rituals regarded as
untouchable.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the taboo
reaction is that it tends to have a cumulative and permanent
discriminatory effect: any idea that is ideologically suspect or
counter to the current paradigm is permanently dismissed, and the
very fact of its rejection forms the basis of its rejection on all future
occasions. It is a little like the court of appeal rejecting the
convicted man’s plea of innocence on the grounds that he must be
guilty or why else is he in jail? And why else did the police arrest
him in the first place? This ‘erring on the side of caution’ means
that in the long term the intellectual Devil’s Island where convicted
concepts are sent becomes more and more crowded with taboo
ideas, all denied to us, and with no possibility of reprieve. We will
never know how many tens or hundreds or thousands of important
discoveries were thrown in the scrap heap merely because of
intolerance and misplaced skepticism.

To the scientists of the Babylonian civilization, it seemed
reasonable to believe that the Earth was flat and was held up by
elephants standing on a giant sea turtle — even though their
astronomy was highly developed and they had observed the
curvature of the Earth’s shadow moving across the Moon during
eclipses. They held this view because they could not imagine a
plausible alternative today. The idea of a flat Earth held up by
elephants was the most reasonable explanation available. Flatness
seemed to fit their everyday experience, and, although highly
improbable, elephants were far less improbable than any
conceivable alternative. Yet, because it was based on faulty
evidence, it was actually only a superstitious belief. What
appeared the most reasonable view was really completely
unreasonable.

The flat Earth theory was rejected by Greek
scientists who observed that the Sun and Moon were spherical and
reasoned that the Earth must be too. Once the flat Earth viewpoint
was deprived of the appearance of being reasonable, its wildly
improbable nature became obvious, and it seems amazing to us
today that anyone could have believed in such a theory, however
limited their scientific knowledge.

I believe that something very similar is true of parts of western
science today. It actually contains some wildly improbable
theories — as improbable as elephants holding up the Earth. Yet
these theories appear to represent a reasonable view because they
offer a natural sounding mechanism explanation that seems
consonant with common sense and our essentially limited
experience and understanding of the world. Whole areas of the
western scientific model come in this category: theories that seem
as solid as rock and, indeed, are the foundations of much of
western thinking, yet in reality are at best unsubstantiated and at
worst no more than superstitions: there are many examples of
Earth beliefs that have been exported the world over. But why
should any rational person — let alone a trained scientist — accept
such beliefs? One especially strange aspect of belief in western
culture is that we habitually use the word belief to mean two
entirely different things depending on whether we are speaking of
belief in an everyday sense (I believe in parliamentary democracy)
or in the scientific sense (I believe in the atomic theory of matter).

It is normal in our culture to take the second statement as meaning
that the empirical evidence and theoretical background of atomic
theory are such that any rational person who analyzes the facts
must be compelled to accept the theory. We also think that this
process of ‘scientific’ acceptance is different in kind from the
ordinary acceptance of everyday things: a person might be right or
wrong to believe in the value and the effectiveness of
parliamentary democracy because it is a matter of opinion, but he
or she cannot be wrong to believe in atomic theory because it is a
matter of fact. Yet the psychological process of acceptance is
actually the same in each case: it rests simply on the fact that the
conclusion seems to be irresistible, even to the well-informed
mind. This appearance of being irresistible can in itself be a
self-evident justification for belief — just as it is ‘obvious’ that
two and two must make four, and just as it was obvious to
Babylonian scientists that the Earth is flat.

The problem that this
psychological process can present, as we saw earlier, arises
because our perception — and hence what appears obvious — is
to some extent determined by our beliefs. It means that all
observers, scientists as well as savages, employ a kind of mental
inertial guidance navigation system which takes over our routine
mental processing; an intellectual autopilot whose perpetual
heading is star of our convictions, and which filters our perceptions
to ensure that they conform to those convictions. It is as though
our perceptions reach our minds through a screen — a matrix that
is dynamically adaptive to our world view and that can selectively
modify the contents of our field of vision in the service of that
world view.”

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I FAIL at quote functions!

We noticed.

You don't see this but. . . .

I described to you a "t." I know. I am magNIfIcent in that way.

Still no evidence

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no problem learning, . . .

Ipse dixit but incorrect as demonstrated by your waffling over his and your errors regarding optic pathways, physiology, et cetera, and, of course, your continued FAILure to learn how to quote on Al Gore's Interwebz.

. . . but I also think that he has something of significance.

What you think is irrelevant to what is.

You never even asked me once how he came to his conclusions, . . . .

I really am not interested in why someone arrived at erroneous conclusions unless it proves my task to teach him to avoid such mistakes.

You just want to believe that the man was a kook and had no basis for his observations. Whatever!

I do not "want to believe" anything; I am forced to conclusions based on the evidence. I would prefer to "believe" I am currently being paid seven digits in a stable monetary system to oil Nicole Kidman and, on Tuesdays, Mila Kunis.

"Belief" is useless; better to know. Hence your constructions of "he thinks that" or "he believes that" are as fatuous as stating "I think Einstein sucks" or "evolution breaks the Laws of Physics twice in one episode, Captain!"

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

P.S. You know, if in a discussion with a physicist regarding my theories of Space-Time and how I can actually travel to Nimbus 9 to meet the Nymphomaniacs thereupon, if I keep writing "whether or not gravity is a force" I really cannot complain if he grabs me right there and starts assaulting me with a garlic press.

This is akin to a Creatard claiming "evolution is impossible" because "it violates Thermodynamic Laws!!!1!!"

No relationship whatsoever, even though you want to put him in the same category as your improper analogies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

We noticed.

I described to you a "t." I know. I am magNIfIcent in that way.

Still no evidence

--J.D.

Maybe I fail in your eyes at quote functions, but you fail in my eyes at patience, open-mindedness, and lack of basic courtesy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Ipse dixit but incorrect as demonstrated by your waffling over his and your errors regarding optic pathways, physiology, et cetera, and, of course, your continued FAILure to learn how to quote on Al Gore's Interwebz.

I'm not waffling over anything. You are grasping at straws without knowing his observations. I am not going any further with you. Go back to your cynical world. Begone!! Poof!!!!!!

. . . but I also think that he has something of significance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you think is irrelevant to what is.

No, what you think is relevant to what is.

You never even asked me once how he came to his conclusions, . . . .

Originally Posted by Doctor X

I really am not interested in why someone arrived at erroneous conclusions unless it proves my task to teach him to avoid such mistakes.

Pleaseeee, do not teach me anything. Thank you very much.

Can everyone can see why I did not want to open this can of worms, and why I will not do a synopsis? Doctor X is the type of person who believes he is the ultimate judge of all truth. He is the only one who can tell a crank from a Faraday just by a quick once over. If we listened to him, we would all be stuck in the Dark Ages.

You just want to believe that the man was a kook and had no basis for his observations. Whatever!

Originally Posted by Doctor X

I do not "want to believe" anything; I am forced to conclusions based on the evidence. I would prefer to "believe" I am currently being paid seven digits in a stable monetary system to oil Nicole Kidman and, on Tuesdays, Mila Kunis.

What evidence? I haven't given you any. I am done with you Doctor X. I know your type and I will not waste any more time with you.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

"Belief" is useless; better to know. Hence your constructions of "he thinks that" or "he believes that" are as fatuous as stating "I think Einstein sucks" or "evolution breaks the Laws of Physics twice in one episode, Captain!"

I wrote "his theory" so that cynics like you would leave him alone. You will never study his work objectively, so there's no point in going any further with a person who is the most narrow minded of all. But of course you don't see this because your 'ability to know all things' is getting in the way. Please back off; I know how you think and you will be saying the same thing over and over (as you already have), ad nauseum. If you keep this pretense up, you will ruin it for the people who are interested, and that will be unfortunate.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think this negates Lessans' observations. We are not talking about a nerve conducting impulses. We are talking about how the brain uses that information. In other words, does the brain decode the impulses to form an image in the brain, or does it use the information to see the external world as it appears in real time.

It occurs to me that part of the problem is that you don't seem to really know what a sense organ is, or what it does. Because otherwise, to claim that the eye is not a sense organ is beyond absurd. [By the way, you can drop the "afferent" in "afferent sense organ." The nerves are afferent, not the organs.]

A very simplified synopsis.

As light travels into the eye, it is refracted by the cornea and the lens to form an image in the eye. As the individual photons strike photoreceptor cells in the retina, the light is transducer into electrochemical impulses. There are two other layers of neurons in the retina, so there's a considerable amount of processing of the impulses by the cells of the retina itself, before it ever gets to the brain. [The retina actually develops as an outgrowth of the brain.]

These impulses are then transported by the optic nerve [which contains only afferent fibers, and thus can only conduct impulses toward the brain, not in the other direction] and ultimately to the visual cortex.

Note that no light is transported to the brain. Therefore the only place there is a literal image formed is in the eye. The optic nerve conveys the information to the brain in the form of electrochemical impulses. These are then interpreted by the neurons of the visual cortex.


So the ability to see is certainly as much a function of the brain as it is of the eyes, but that's hardly a new observation.

It's also worth keeping in mind that seeing is more complex than you might think. Doctor X mentioned that impulses are conveyed to the superior colliculi of the brain before being relayed on to the visual cortex, for instance. It's the visual cortex that allows us to consciously interpret these impulses as what we call "sight." The superior colliculi are important in regulating many of our unconscious responses to what we see. In some individuals, damage to the visual pathway leaves them unable to see, because impulses don't reach the visual cortex. Yet some of these individuals can nonetheless avoid obstacles -- sometimes even catch objects thrown toward them -- if the pathway remains intact up to the superior colliculi.


Now it's certainly the case that we need a certain amount of experience in order to properly interpret what it is that we're seeing. But again, that's hardly a new or controversial or revolutionary thing to say.

But it's factually incorrect to claim that one literally cannot see without the relevant experience. Newborns can certainly see, as is easily demonstrated. They can even recognize faces, it appears. By this, I don't mean that an infant quickly learns to recognize its parents' faces; I mean that even newborns seem to "instinctively" recognize faces (even in photographs) as faces. [The ability to recognize faces is evidently hardwired into the human brain. Some forms of brain damage cause "face blindness"; the person can see normally, but loses the ability to recognize and distinguish faces.]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]According to Richard Milton, in his book, “Alternative
Science, Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment,”
“We are living in a time of rising academic intolerance in which
important new discoveries in physics, medicine, and biology are
being ridiculed and rejected for reasons that are not scientific.
Something precious and irreplaceable is under attack. Our
academic liberty — our freedom of thought — is being threatened
by an establishment that chooses to turn aside new knowledge
unless it comes from their own scientific circles. Some academics
appoint themselves vigilantes to guard the gates of science against
troublemakers with new ideas. Yet science has a two thousand
year record of success not because it has been guarded by an
Inquisition, but because it is self-regulating. It has succeeded
because bad science is driven out by good; an ounce of
open-minded experiment is worth any amount of authoritative
opinion by self-styled scientific rationalists.

Uh oh. Danger, danger Will Robinson!!

The first sign of a crank is that they claim that "Mainstream Science" is too close-minded to accept their revolutionary discoveries.

This is pure and unadulterated bullshit. That is, it's an outright lie.

The "scientific community" did not dismiss Edison's lamp. For crying out loud, electric lamps existed for fifty years before Edison perfected his particular design. Don't repeat idiocies; it's not becoming. Neither did the scientific community "reject" Roentgen's X-rays -- he could and did demonstrate that X-rays exist, thus there was nothing to reject. Nor did the scientific community reject the Wright's airplane.

Let me go off on that point for a bit, because it's a particularly persistent lie. Many people nowadays like to claim that "mainstream science" (poor Lord Kelvin seems to be a particular victim) had declared that heavier than air flight was physically impossible. The "scientific community" did no such thing. It's a lie that the "scientific community" had declared that such a thing was physically impossible.

It would require incredible stupidity to make such a claim. After all, birds, insects and bats are all heavier than air. And they fly nonetheless. So the notion that heavier than air flight is physically impossible is just stupid -- and it was never advocated by the "mainstream scientific community."

What some people did maintain was that it would probably never be practical to build heavier-than-air flying machines. And you know what? They were right to say so, at the time.

More precisely, what they were right about is that none of the engines in existence at the time could develop a sufficiently high power-to-weight ratio to permit heavier than air flight. So it was impossible to build a heavier than air flying machine. Once the gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine was invented, which could generate much more power relative to its weight than a steam engine, that changed. At that point, it was only a question of who would be first to build a flying machine. [The Wrights weren't the only people working on the problem; they were the first ones to produce a working prototype.]


The modern scientific community, as a rule, is quick to adopt surprising, even revolutionary ideas, with one very important caveat. They demand convincing evidence.

Take Darwin and Einstein, for instance. Their insights were genuinely surprising, indeed, revoutionary. Yet they were quickly embraced by the scientific community. Why? Because they had evidence to back their claims.

Some people think that it's "unfair" that those mean old scientists demand evidence before they'll accept some new claim. And the more surprising and unlikely the claim, the more convincing the evidence must be. But there's no point in complaining about this: that's how science is done. If you want claims to be accepted by the scientific community, you must provide evidence for those claims. Nothing could be fairer. It's disingenuous and indeed dishonest to complain that revolutionary ideas are being rejected merely because "mainstream science" is too small-minded to accept them.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still fail at quoting.

No relationship whatsoever, even though you want to put him in the same category as your improper analogies.

Of course there is. And you know it.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I fail in your eyes at quote functions, . . .

You do.

. . . but you fail in my eyes at patience, open-mindedness, and lack of basic courtesy.

You have already demonstrated why your opinion proves worthless.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not waffling over anything.

But of course you are You have avoided answering questions, and you still cannot provide evidence after, what? Years?

I am not going any further with you.

And I care? I will continue to tear apart your willful ignorance for the Commonweal. Noblesse oblige.

No, what you think is relevant to what is.

NO! U!

Pleaseeee, do not teach me anything. Thank you very much.

I know, you prefer to reside in the shite. It becomes you

Can everyone can see why I did not want to open this can of worms, and why I will not do a synopsis?

Because you prefer your ignorance. We know

What evidence? I haven't given you any.

We know

I am done with you Doctor X. I know your type and I will not waste any more time with you.

But you still cannot quit me

I wrote "his theory" so that cynics like you would leave him alone.

"We" never touched him: he is a forgotten crank only stirred up by you his willfully ignorant cheerleader

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It occurs to me that part of the problem is that you don't seem to really know what a sense organ is, or what it does. Because otherwise, to claim that the eye is not a sense organ is beyond absurd. [By the way, you can drop the "afferent" in "afferent sense organ." The nerves are afferent, not the organs.]

A very simplified synopsis.

Do you see what this has caused? I wanted to stay on Chapter Two, but now everyone is focussed on Chapter Four. We never even got to his first discovery.

I will post a small excerpt but I'm not writing a simplified synopsis.

It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed,
but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound as you will
soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell,
sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences
that exist, but when we say that these five are senses we are
assuming the eyes function like the other four — which they do
not. When you learn what this single misconception has done to
the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So without
further delay, I shall prove something never before understood by
man, but before I open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five
Senses’ to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is
absolutely necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense
organ.

Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the
apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form
of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our
problem that much more difficult since this has denied us the
ability to see reality for what it is? In fact, it can be demonstrated
at the birth of a child that no object is capable of getting a reaction
from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to
cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells
can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being
struck by something external.

“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract
depending on the intensity?”

That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition
of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a
condition of hearing. If there was no light we could not see, and
if there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could
not hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our
eardrums whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on
the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve. This is somewhat
equivalent to a baby sleeping with his eyes wide open who does
not awaken when objects are placed in front of him, although a
loud noise which strikes the ear drum can easily do the job. Did
you ever wonder why the eyes of a newborn baby cannot focus the
eyes to see what exists around him, although the other four senses
are in full working order?

“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have
not yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”

And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it
is not the truth. In fact, if an infant was placed in a soundproof
room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience
which is a prerequisite of sight, even though the eyelids were
permanently removed, he could never have the desire to see. If a
newborn infant was not permitted to have any sense experiences,
the brain would never desire to focus the eyes to look through them
at the external world no matter how much light was present.
Consequently, even though the lids were removed, and even
though many colorful objects were placed in front of the baby, he
could never see because the brain is not looking.

Furthermore, and
quite revealing, if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer
on a steady flow of intravenous glucose, if possible, without
allowing any stimuli to strike the other four organs of sense, this
baby, child, young and middle aged person would never be able to
focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that room no matter
how much light was present or how colorful they might be because
the conditions necessary for sight have been removed, and there is
absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object
and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it. We need light to see,
just as other things are a condition of hearing.

Sight takes
place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense
experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these are
doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The
eyes are the windows of the brain through which experience is
gained not by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of
striking the optic nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the
afferent experience of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is
an efferent experience.

If a lion roared in that room a newborn
baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the
eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true
for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve
ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is
no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ. The brain records
various sounds, tastes, touches and smells in relation to the objects
from which these experiences are derived, and then looks through
the eyes to see these things that have become familiar as a result of
the relation. This desire is an electric current which turns on or
focuses the eyes to see that which exists — completely
independent of man’s perception — in the external world.

He
doesn’t see these objects because they strike the optic nerve; he
sees them because they are there to be seen. But in order to look,
there must be a desire to see. The child becomes aware that
something will soon follow something else which then arouses
attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses
when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact
with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to
calling a potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called
a sense organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an
inaccurate observation that was never corrected.

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that
light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for
granted that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement
(which my friend referred to) and still exists in our encyclopedias
that if we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope
focused on the earth we would just be able to see the ships of
Columbus reaching America for the very first time. A former
science teacher who taught this to her students as if it were an
absolute fact responded, “I am sure Columbus would just be
arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”

Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told
this, or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing
this truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right
hand on the chopping block to show me how positive you really
are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the
reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are
completely fallacious.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As light travels into the eye, it is refracted by the cornea and the lens to form an image in the eye. As the individual photons strike photoreceptor cells in the retina, the light is transducer into electrochemical impulses. There are two other layers of neurons in the retina, so there's a considerable amount of processing of the impulses by the cells of the retina itself, before it ever gets to the brain. [The retina actually develops as an outgrowth of the brain.]

These impulses are then transported by the optic nerve [which contains only afferent fibers, and thus can only conduct impulses toward the brain, not in the other direction] and ultimately to the visual cortex.

Note that no light is transported to the brain. Therefore the only place there is a literal image formed is in the eye. The optic nerve conveys the information to the brain in the form of electrochemical impulses. These are then interpreted by the neurons of the visual cortex.


So the ability to see is certainly as much a function of the brain as it is of the eyes, but that's hardly a new observation.

It's also worth keeping in mind that seeing is more complex than you might think. Doctor X mentioned that impulses are conveyed to the superior colliculi of the brain before being relayed on to the visual cortex, for instance. It's the visual cortex that allows us to consciously interpret these impulses as what we call "sight." The superior colliculi are important in regulating many of our unconscious responses to what we see. In some individuals, damage to the visual pathway leaves them unable to see, because impulses don't reach the visual cortex. Yet some of these individuals can nonetheless avoid obstacles -- sometimes even catch objects thrown toward them -- if the pathway remains intact up to the superior colliculi.

Thank you for going out of your way to explain the workings of the eye. I agree with you for the most part. But I think it's a theory that the visual cortex interprets the chemical impulses derived from the light. There is definitely a purpose for every structure, but the explanation he is proposing is slightly different than the standard model of sight. I am also in agreement that there is a visual pathway and if anything is disturbed, sight will be affected.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Now it's certainly the case that we need a certain amount of experience in order to properly interpret what it is that we're seeing. But again, that's hardly a new or controversial or revolutionary thing to say.

How we interpret what we see wouldn't change the fact that the brain looks through the eyes at the external world.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But it's factually incorrect to claim that one literally cannot see without the relevant experience. Newborns can certainly see, as is easily demonstrated. They can even recognize faces, it appears. By this, I don't mean that an infant quickly learns to recognize its parents' faces; I mean that even newborns seem to "instinctively" recognize faces (even in photographs) as faces. [The ability to recognize faces is evidently hardwired into the human brain. Some forms of brain damage cause "face blindness"; the person can see normally, but loses the ability to recognize and distinguish faces.]

According to Lessans' observations, a baby cannot focus his eyes until other sense experience awakens the brain to focus the eyes to see what it is experiencing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]According to Richard Milton, in his book, “Alternative
Science, Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment,”
“We are living in a time of rising academic intolerance in which
important new discoveries in physics, medicine, and biology are
being ridiculed and rejected for reasons that are not scientific.
Something precious and irreplaceable is under attack. Our
academic liberty — our freedom of thought — is being threatened
by an establishment that chooses to turn aside new knowledge
unless it comes from their own scientific circles. Some academics
appoint themselves vigilantes to guard the gates of science against
troublemakers with new ideas. Yet science has a two thousand
year record of success not because it has been guarded by an
Inquisition, but because it is self-regulating. It has succeeded
because bad science is driven out by good; an ounce of
open-minded experiment is worth any amount of authoritative
opinion by self-styled scientific rationalists.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Uh oh. Danger, danger Will Robinson!!

The first sign of a crank is that they claim that "Mainstream Science" is too close-minded to accept their revolutionary discoveries.

This is pure and unadulterated bullshit. That is, it's an outright lie.

I guess it depends on who, in Mainstream Science, is making the determination. Look at what happened to Gregor Mendel.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The "scientific community" did not dismiss Edison's lamp. For crying out loud, electric lamps existed for fifty years before Edison perfected his particular design. Don't repeat idiocies; it's not becoming. Neither did the scientific community "reject" Roentgen's X-rays -- he could and did demonstrate that X-rays exist, thus there was nothing to reject. Nor did the scientific community reject the Wright's airplane.

Let me go off on that point for a bit, because it's a particularly persistent lie. Many people nowadays like to claim that "mainstream science" (poor Lord Kelvin seems to be a particular victim) had declared that heavier than air flight was physically impossible. The "scientific community" did no such thing. It's a lie that the "scientific community" had declared that such a thing was physically impossible.

It would require incredible stupidity to make such a claim. After all, birds, insects and bats are all heavier than air. And they fly nonetheless. So the notion that heavier than air flight is physically impossible is just stupid -- and it was never advocated by the "mainstream scientific community."

What some people did maintain was that it would probably never be practical to build heavier-than-air flying machines. And you know what? They were right to say so, at the time.

More precisely, what they were right about is that none of the engines in existence at the time could develop a sufficiently high power-to-weight ratio to permit heavier than air flight. So it was impossible to build a heavier than air flying machine. Once the gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine was invented, which could generate much more power relative to its weight than a steam engine, that changed. At that point, it was only a question of who would be first to build a flying machine. [The Wrights weren't the only people working on the problem; they were the first ones to produce a working prototype.]

That is usually the case. One person usually doesn't invent or come up with a discovery without the help of many other contributors. I am sure there are many people who are charlatans, and then cry foul play when people don't agree with their ideas, but there are also people who have been rejected by leading authorities and were later found to be correct.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The modern scientific community, as a rule, is quick to adopt surprising, even revolutionary ideas, with one very important caveat. They demand convincing evidence.

Take Darwin and Einstein, for instance. Their insights were genuinely surprising, indeed, revoutionary. Yet they were quickly embraced by the scientific community. Why? Because they had evidence to back their claims.

Some people think that it's "unfair" that those mean old scientists demand evidence before they'll accept some new claim. And the more surprising and unlikely the claim, the more convincing the evidence must be. But there's no point in complaining about this: that's how science is done. If you want claims to be accepted by the scientific community, you must provide evidence for those claims. Nothing could be fairer. It's disingenuous and indeed dishonest to complain that revolutionary ideas are being rejected merely because "mainstream science" is too small-minded to accept them.

There is evidence Ranger. We might not be dealing with a physical object (such as a lightbulb), but that doesn't mean Lessans' reasoning and observations were false. The irony is that no one even got to Chapter Two. It's laughable because people are refuting a concept they haven't even heard yet. I can tell you are a good biology teacher by clarifying in a clear and precise way how the eye works (even though there is some disagreement). Even though his observations may seem entirely off base, I hope more empirical testing will determine, once and for all, if he is right or wrong.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Take Darwin and Einstein, for instance. Their insights were genuinely surprising, indeed, revoutionary. Yet they were quickly embraced by the scientific community. Why? Because they had evidence to back their claims.

This seems to apply to peacegirl:

YouTube - THE ROAD TO FLIGHT

--J.D.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am sure there are many people who are charlatans, and then cry foul play when people don't agree with their ideas, but there are also people who have been rejected by leading authorities and were later found to be correct.

What I would be most interested in seeing, at this point, is any reason, any reason at all, why one should view this book and your defense of it as the latter instead of the former. I currently see none whatsoever.

Were this truly the kind of world-changing, paradigm-shifting, outside-the-box-revolutionizing idea you claim it is, it would be far more appropriate to be spending your energies attempting to reach and convince leading academics in the appropriate fields. Though this is no doubt difficult and daunting, it is possible. The only reason I can see to instead spend your energies posting on any internet forum that won't ban you is that you are, on some level, aware of the glaring lack of testable claims, corroborating evidence, or empirical observations in the work you have chosen to defend. That is to say nothing of the abysmal quality of the prose, the stilted and contrived dialogue, and the grating self-aggrandizement replete throughout that would make any such claims, evidence, or observations difficult if not impossible to spot in the first place.

If you truly think you have something important here, why are you wasting your time on the internet, and if not, why are you wasting your time trolling?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that
light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for
granted that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement
(which my friend referred to) and still exists in our encyclopedias
that if we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope
focused on the earth we would just be able to see the ships of
Columbus reaching America for the very first time. A former
science teacher who taught this to her students as if it were an
absolute fact responded, “I am sure Columbus would just be
arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”

Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told
this, or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing
this truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right
hand on the chopping block to show me how positive you really
are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

What in blue hell is the author driving at here?

Given the finitude of the speed of light, we see distant objects as they were in the past, not as they are in our present. The author disputes this?

[davidm]

Maybe the question could be put another way. Peacegirl, what does the author think that the astronomers on Rigel would see, in the given example?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

You do.

You have already demonstrated why your opinion proves worthless.

--J.D.

The exit door is open. Tootaloo!

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The exit door is open. Tootaloo!

Indeed. You are free to leave at any time

Now about the efferent optic nerve. . . .

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

What I would be most interested in seeing, at this point, is any reason, any reason at all, why one should view this book and your defense of it as the latter instead of the former. I currently see none whatsoever.

Were this truly the kind of world-changing, paradigm-shifting, outside-the-box-revolutionizing idea you claim it is, it would be far more appropriate to be spending your energies attempting to reach and convince leading academics in the appropriate fields. Though this is no doubt difficult and daunting, it is possible. The only reason I can see to instead spend your energies posting on any internet forum that won't ban you is that you are, on some level, aware of the glaring lack of testable claims, corroborating evidence, or empirical observations in the work you have chosen to defend. That is to say nothing of the abysmal quality of the prose, the stilted and contrived dialogue, and the grating self-aggrandizement replete throughout that would make any such claims, evidence, or observations difficult if not impossible to spot in the first place.

If you truly think you have something important here, why are you wasting your time on the internet, and if not, why are you wasting your time trolling?

I had no idea I was trolling, as you put it. I am not here to provoke people intentionally. I am concerned that if you guys can't even understand why man's will is not free, and you just ignore this truth as if it's nothing, then I don't have a lot of hope for scientists in the field. They are often very stuffy. I believe it's going to take someone like Echart Tolle, or Wayne Dyer, or possibly the New Age folks who will take the time to study the book, even though this book has nothing metaphysical or supernatural in it. I am still waiting for my final proof, which is coming within a few days. Then I will be able to set up my website and move forward. I do have other things in my life so I can only give a limited amount of time to this endeavor. Maybe I'll do some book signings.