A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Not only are the author's claims ridiculous and incohrent on their face, he offers no support whatsoever for them: no empirical evidence, no scientific exeperiments, no explanatory theory, literally nothing. It doesn't even make sense to say that because only light reaches the optic nerve (though later he contradicts himself, claiming that nothing reaches the optic nerve), then the eye is not a sense organ. Erm, light is what the eye senses.

Yes, light is what the eye senses but you are assuming that light must impinge on the optic nerve for the pupil to dilate and contract in order for the brain to see what the object is reflecting. Even so, this doesn't mean that the image is reflected the light itself whereupon the light travels away from the object itself. The dilemma that I see is this: Does light have to impinge on the optic nerve for the brain to directly see an object? If it doesn't, then you will be able to at least hear the rest of his reasoning. If you can't move on because you feel he is wrong, then you will balk at his conclusions, not because they are necessarily wrong, but because you can't imagine that he could be right. It's the same thing with the discussion on determinism. No one will go further.

Originally Posted by davidm

The signals are transmitted to the brain, where, with input from the other sense organs, a picture of the world is built. It is true that our knowledge of exaclty how this picture is built is incomplete, but there is no doubt that the eyes, in the rose of sense organs, contributes more than any other sense organ to the construction of this picture of reality.

I empathize with everyone because this is so antithetical to what they've been taught and believe to be true.

Originally Posted by davidm

Honestly, this book is bonkers. I think his exact quote later on is: "Remember, nothing reaches the optic nerve." It never ceases to amuse and amaze how often people who say patently ridiculous things always preface their statements with the word "Remember..." Anyway, he might just as well have written something like, "Remember, the process of seeing is wholly associated with flummerdusting," and he would have said something exactly as sensible as he said in the actual book.

That's your take on his observations right now, but I hope you at least will stick around to see why he came to these conclusions. You said no one will listen because there is no resolution up to this point. But this is half of the equation, just like determinism is only half of the equation. It's incomplete, and the danger is that you will prematurely leave this thread because you think it's all bonkers.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The author writes:

Pray, what is this man's theory of how we see? Since he admits that the speed of light is finite, it follows inevitably that distant objects will appear to us now, as they were in the past.

But he says, "an image is not being reflected." Is he saying that light is not being reflected off the plane? Then, pray tell, what is happening? How does he think that we see anything at all?

I want to add that it's not that light does not reflect and absorb colors, but here is the twist, the light does not carry that image (that's what he meant by reflect) for us to decode in the brain by means of chemical and electrical impulses. The confusion I believe is that we can see from a pinhole camera the appearance of the object upside down. But once again, this wavelength is used by the brain to see the object in real time; it is an inaccurate obversation to say that we are seeing something in the past.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, light is what the eye senses but you are assuming that light must impinge on the optic nerve for the pupil to dilate and contract in order for the brain to see what the light is reflecting. Even so, this doesn't mean that the image is in the light itself whereupon the chemical-electrical impulses are then transformed into an image in the back part of the brain. The dilemma that I see is this: Does light have to impinge on the optic nerve for the brain to directly see an object? If it doesn't, then you will be able to at least hear the rest of his reasoning.

Oh, good lord, read this post! It was just made within the last 15 minutes or so. The post proves that the author is wrong! That's it!

And as has already been explained to you, no one claims that the "image is in the light itself." Did you bother to read erimir's post on this? The mind constructs the image out of signals received through the optic nerve. For fuck's sake, this is elementary stuff.

There is no such thing as "directly seeing an object." The mind constructs pictures of objects from light reflected off of them. There is nothing else to say. The author does not have a competing theory. The author has nothing more than the equivalent of "Remember, light clumsticks and then effervescent booty, and ipso dergomon."

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to add that it's not that light does not reflect and absorb colors, but here is the twist, the light does not carry the image (that's what he meant by reflect) in order for us to decode in the brain by means of chemical and electrical impulses.

Eh, what? What the fuck does this mean?

[davidm]

Laughably, the author claims that if a TV program were beamed from earth to Rigel, then observers on Rigel would see earth as it was in the past, at the time of the broadcast. But if they were looking through a sufficiently powerful telescope, they would not see the earth as it was in the past, but in real time!

FFS, by what means does the author think the TV program is sent to Rigel? It's sent via light. So there could be no difference in principle between viewing a TV broadcast and looking through a telescope! You end up the same with both: you see the world as it was in the past.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

See, here is what's weird. I can imagine someone arguing that we see everything as it is in real time because the speed of light is infinite; i.e., it propagates instantaneously. Anyone who argued thus, would be wrong, to be sure; but at least the claim, however false, would be coherent.

The problem is that you are still thinking that light itself contains this image that if propagated instantaneously, we would see instantaneously. But that's not what he's saying.

Originally Posted by davidm

The author's claims here do not even meet the standard of coherency. Given that he accepts that light travels at a finite speed, how can he maintain that what we see, is seen exactly as it happens? His claim then is, "an image is not reflected"; by which I take it to mean that he says light is not reflected off of objects. But of course it is. So, what in the world is he talking about? How does he think that we see objects?

This entire confusion has to do with how the brain and eyes work, not how light works. Light reflects off of objects, just as it is absorbed into objects, but that same wavelength does not carry the reflection of that image into the brain. It allows the brain to see the object by means of the wavelength that the light produces.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is that you are still thinking that light itself contains this image that if propagated instantaneously, we would see instantaneously. But that's not what he's saying.

Er, no, see what I already wrote. The image is constructed in the brain, from signals conducted by the optic nerve which itself is activated by reflected light.

This entire confusion has to do with how the brain and eyes work, not how light works. Light reflects off of objects, just as it is absorbed into objects, but that same wavelength does not carry the reflection of that image into the brain. It allows the brain to see the object by means of the wavelength that the light produces.

Er, it allows the brain to see objects by means of the wavelength that the light produces? So if light allows the brain the see objects, it necessarily follows that the brain will see objects as they were in the past, because light, no matter what its wavelength, travels at fucking velocity c in vacuo.

Oh, and did you see ceptimus's post, which proves that we see reflected light, and thus we see objects as they were in the past?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

(Wrong) What he means is that the image is not coming from the light. The light itself is not sending a chemical messenger to the brain to then be formed into an image. In other words, there is no time element in sight. We see the object because light allows us to see it directly. That doesn't mean light isn't traveling at a certain rate of speed.

The light must travel to the eye after being bounced off the object, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see planets with the naked eye (they don't give off their own light) nor would we be able to see refractions or reflections.

From a site meant for children

The first step in how your eye works is the light from the outside world traveling to your eye.

This is why the speed of light matters, the light must travel to your eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

our brains are looking out and seeing the object directly

So he thinks the eyes are just windows our brain looks through?

As has been pointed out, the pathway from eye to visual cortex is one way only to the brain not from the brain and out the eye.

you are still thinking that light itself contains this image

Nobody thinks that. The brain creates the image from the information contained in the reflected light. Do you think a photograph sent to email goes over the network of wired and wireless systems as a whole image somehow? No, it's 0's and 1's the computer then puts together to show you the photo.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

the author writes:

It's true objects don't "send out pictures." Light, however, reflects off objects, and since the velocity of light is finite, we will not see that reflected light until some period of time x after it leaves the object. When we do see the light, our brain "processes" it to create a picture in our hends.

Thus, the author is demonstrably wrong. What in the world does he actually think is going on, when we see things?

Maybe this will help. Objects cause light to be reflected, that is true, but the image of the object is not reflected and carried in the light away from the object itself. In other words, the light doesn't have the information of the object if the object is not large enough to be seen whether it's through a telescope or the naked eye. That is why people believe that light itself carries with it images from the past that only need decoding in the brain. It is also assumed that the light, not the light's reflection off of the object, is what carries the information. This is categorically wrong. That is why he said light is a condition of sight, not a cause of sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, what is the mechanism by which we see the plane, the moon, or a distant galaxy?

As I just mentioned, we see a plane, the moon, or a distant galaxy because these objects are large enough and have enough light reflecting off of them to be seen by the eye or by a telescope that will magnify these objects to where they can be seen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

OK. So how do we see, peacegirl?

We see because light allows us to. We are able to see the external world as long as the object we are viewing is large enough and bright enough for the conditions to be favorable for us to see them.

[LadyShea]

Then how do we see rainbows?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

From slogging my way a bit further through this book, the author claims that nothng from the outside world impinges on the optic nerve! Well, then, how do we see? It appears his claim is that we have four senses: I take those to be hearing, touch, taste and smell. When the four senses are combined, a "photograph" or some such appears to be created in the head, and this is what we see.

You are getting confused by what he means by photograph taken. This has to do with words, which I have not gotten into yet. That's why I said all along that we need to go step by step. Of course you can feel the warmth of the sun, because that warmth you are feeling is due to your sensing this warmth as the nerve endings carry that external stimuli to your brain.

Originally Posted by davidm

Well, we can't smell, hear or taste the sun. But we can feel the sensation of warmth, due to the photons from the sun falling on us. So when we see the sun, we're really feeling it?

No, you are mixing up the sense of touch with the sense of sight. The two are not related.

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course, if this is the claim, it remains the case that it takes the photons coming from the sun about eight minutes to reach us. Thus, even if vision were touched off by sensation, it's still the case that we would be "seeing" the sun as it was, eight minutes in the past.

No we wouldn't because the image is not being reflected in the light itself. The object is being reflected by the light but the light does not carry the image without the presence of the object that is reflecting that light.

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course, there is no reason to take the "four senses conspire to create vision" claim seriously at all. It's just wrong, obviously, and this whole discussion becomes ludicrous.

I gave up when, on reading a bit ahead, I discovered that all of the above somehow creates disrespect between the genders owing to "differing world slides."

Huh? I don't know where you got that from. There is not one ounce of disrespect shown between the sexes in this book. That just shows me how easy it is to misinterpret what is being said.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Earlier in the book, the author states:

But later in the book, he says nothing from the outside world strikes the optic nerve; but here above he is saying something does: light.

And yet, he argues, the eyes are not a sense organ.

Erm.... why not??

He said all along that light strikes the optic nerve and also causes the pupils to dilate and contract. But it sends us no information about the external world as does the other senses. That is why the eyes are not a sense organ. It is not sensing anything; it's not receiving any information from the outside world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

So I'm interested in how your dad's discovery will affect homosexuality and sexuality more generally.

Will there be no more gay people after the discovery is put into practice? Will people only participate in vaginal procreative sex, or will blowjobs and buttsex still happen?

This is dumb.

Was your dad under the impression that the claim of mainstream science was that each ray of light carries an entire picture in it?

And was he under the impression that sound was also conveyed in this manner? (That is, that each "sound wave" or vibration carries an entire "sound picture" so to speak?)

Because both of those notions are horribly wrong.

Our eyes have to construct the image, it doesn't receive a full image from each ray of light. If you look closely at your TV screen (easier on a non-HD screen), you can see that it is composed of many tiny pixels, each one sending out three colors. When each of these tiny points of color is added together in proper relation to each other, you get the full image. Your eye works on a similar principle, except that the total number of "pixels" is much much higher.

The only slight kernel of truth in there is that the other senses do help your brain properly interpret the sense data coming from your eyes. When you see the corners of a room, your brain interprets them differently than someone who has never lived in modern squarish buildings - your experience with seeing that type of image and its correspondence to the box shape (which would be informed by your sense of touch) leads your brain to automatically interpret it a certain way.

This is the reason that this optical illusion works:



You probably see the bottom line as longer than the top line, when if you actually put a straight edge up to them, you can see that they're the same length.

However, people who grow up in different cultures where boxy rooms and buildings are less common are less susceptible to this illusion.

But this of course doesn't mean that we can't see unless we can touch, because it quite simply is not the case that people who have impairments in their other senses have less acute sight. Deaf people see fine, the rare person who can't feel much by touch, people who can't smell or taste can see, people with inner ear (sense of balance) can see, and I imagine that someone who lacked several of those senses (someone deaf with no sense of smell or taste, for example) would still be able to see fine.

Because quite simply your dad's theories are absurd and idiotic.

Now when you say "observations" you mean stuff that your dad pulled out of his ass. Because your dad can't remember learning how to see, and as you admit, he wasn't a scientist. He did no scientific study of how sight develops in infants.

Erimir, I was getting ready to answer you until I read the entire post. I need to train people what I will accept and what I won't. And your last comment was extremely disrespectful to me and my father, therefore I'm passing by this post. Sorry. Better luck next time when you change the way you talk to me.

[BrotherMan]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The how do we see rainbows?

Duh.

First Get High

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Not only are the author's claims ridiculous and incohrent on their face, he offers no support whatsoever for them: no empirical evidence, no scientific exeperiments, no explanatory theory, literally nothing. It doesn't even make sense to say that because only light reaches the optic nerve (though later he contradicts himself, claiming that nothing reaches the optic nerve), then the eye is not a sense organ. Erm, light is what the eye senses. The signals are transmitted to the brain, where, with input from the other sense organs, a picture of the world is built. It is true that our knowledge of exaclty how this picture is built is incomplete, but there is no doubt that the eyes, in the rose of sense organs, contributes more than any other sense organ to the construction of this picture of reality.

Honestly, this book is bonkers. I think his exact quote later on is: "Remember, nothing reaches the optic nerve." It never ceases to amuse and amaze how often people who say patently ridiculous things always preface their statements with the word "Remember..." Anyway, he might just as well have written something like, "Remember, the process of seeing is wholly associated with flummerdusting," and he would have said something exactly as sensible as he said in the actual book.

I need to add that I use the word remember a lot, but it does not mean that what is being said is patently ridiculous. It's just to let those reading remember the most important points because it's so easy to lose one's train of thought when the concepts being explained are so new.

[LadyShea]

Let's equate it with something the author seems to think does carry information, soundwaves. Sonar is able to interpret the shape and distance of an object from the quality and timing of bounced back soundwaves. The ocean floor, for example, doesn't "send" sound, but we can use sonar to map it, correct? When we hear a sound we interpret the distance and direction based on the qualities and timing of that sound, correct?

Our eyes receive the light and our brains interpret the shape, color, and distance of an object based on the quality and timing of the light received.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

In Chapter 5 (p. 146), Mr. Lessans wrote that "I am going to put a mathematical end to all premarital sexual intercourse[.]" There appears to be no definitive statement regarding hummers, handjobs, buttfucking or Cleveland Steamers.

On page 165 he says that same-sex relationships "will naturally decline when all blame is removed from the environment," suggesting a causal connection between blame and the existence of such relationships.

Also, there will be fewer lard-asses in the new world order but even they will be A-OK because there will be chubby chasers. Srsly.

I know this came from Erimir, but since someone else is giving wrong answers, I feel the need to correct them. This is why opening the book in the middle is so bad. Why can't you people listen?

Anything goes in the new world. The sex, the handjobs, the hummers, the buttfucking, is all going to be better than ever. Same-sex relationships will naturally decline ONLY if something in the environment caused this preference. When there is no more judgment in a judgmental environment, and there is no criticism of someone who is a little more on the feminine side, there might be a change. I don't know. The only way we will know is when all critical judgment of those who don't meet society's standards is removed entirely. If it is genetic, then we will also know. It wouldn't matter in the new world because no one will be judging.

As far as being naturally heavier, it is true that some people are attracted to larger women or men. But whatever they are attracted to is none of your business. Your comments could never be justified by you in the new world knowing that these comments were meant to hurt, and also knowing that the people you hurt by these comments would never hurt you back in return.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe this will help. Objects cause light to be reflected, that is true, but the image of the object is not reflected and carried in the light away from the object itself. In other words, the light doesn't have the information of the object if the object is not large enough to be seen whether it's through a telescope or the naked eye. That is why people believe that light itself carries with it images from the past that only need decoding in the brain. It is also assumed that the light, not the light's reflection off of the object, is what carries the information. This is categorically wrong. That is why he said light is a condition of sight, not a cause of sight.

Honestly, you have no clue what the author is talking about, and no clue what you are talking about, do you?

Here's how we see:

1. Light strikes an object.

2. Some of the light is absorbed by the object, but some of it is reflected, at varying wavelengths. It travels to the eye.

3. It impinges on the optic nerve, and signals are conducted to the brain, which process the signals to build an image of the outside world.

That's it.

Everything else that you and the author write is gobbledygook. It can't even be refuted because it doesn't make any sense.

Oh, and by the way, how do you and the idiot author think that we see color? We see color because the light that travels to our eyes comes in different wavelengths, and the brain processes different wavelengths as different hues.

Fuck, a child knows this stuff.

[LadyShea]

someone else is giving wrong answers, I feel the need to correct them. This is why opening the book in the middle is so bad. Why can't you people listen?

The author wrote the words, and the paraphrasing you are fuming at, though using cruder language, accurately reflects the author's intended meaning, assuming he wasn't writing in code or using odd definitions.

Opening in the middle has nothing to do with it, why do you keep making that some big point? What additional context is needed to understand (not agree with) the author's assertion "Homosexual relationships will naturally decline" under the changed conditions?

Do you need the whole context of my life to date, or the project I am working on, to understand the following sentence? "I am going to sand some crafts in the woodshop today"?

[davidm]

Say, Peacegirl, what about this post, which conclusively proves that we see reflected light, and the light shows us things as they were in the past, because the speed of light is finite? What about that post, huh?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then how do we see rainbows?

This question is in response to this assertion

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the light doesn't have the information of the object if the object is not large enough to be seen whether it's through a telescope or the naked eye.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Erimir, I was getting ready to answer you until I read the entire post. I need to train people what I will accept and what I won't. And your last comment was extremely disrespectful to me and my father, therefore I'm passing by this post. Sorry. Better luck next time when you change the way you talk to me.

That's so nice. Rather than thanking erimir for correcting the misinformation propounded by the lunatic who wrote this pile of garbage, you tell erimir you will not respond to his post. No doubt the real reason is you can't respond to it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said all along that light strikes the optic nerve and also causes the pupils to dilate and contract. But it sends us no information about the external world as does the other senses.

Oh, it doesn't? Urm, why doesn't it?