A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Yeah, you can't help but feel sorry for the poor kitty.

In the study davidm references, electrodes were implanted in cats' thalami. (The thalamus acts as a kind of "routing station" for the brain, routing incoming sensory data to the appropriate region of the cortex for processing and interpretation.)

Experiments in which electrodes are implanted directly into cats' visual cortexes to see how they interpret visual data and construct images have been done since the late 1950s. These studies have given us a fairly detailed understanding of how the visual cortex processes incoming visual data to construct images. Different banks of neurons in the visual cortex respond to different things, of course (some respond strongly to movement, for example), but one thing they tend to respond strongly to are lines. And different neurons respond to lines that are at different angles.

So, one important component to how the visual cortex interprets visual data and uses it to construct images is that it apparently breaks the incoming visual data down into a series of lines at different orientations to each other, and then uses these lines to reconstruct an image. It's quite a fascinating subject, really. Contrary to what peacegirl claims to believe, there have been quite a number of studies regarding how the brain processes visual data, and they've provided a fairly detailed description of how our brains use impulses from the optic nerve to reconstruct images.

The results of these studies are carefully hidden in things called scientific journals, which are themselves cleverly concealed in places called libraries.

[Vivisectus]

I reckon it is willing ignorance of the religious flavor. The same type that you see in young-earthers and other fundamentalists. They start with the idea that what they believe is the whole and undeniable truth and then just work back from that.

Fundies like to say things that Peacegirl could have said, such as "Not enough research has been done to establish that the Bible us literally true", "There is an anti-Christian bias in science" or "Science is too locked into an old-earth narrative that it is missing the evidence in favor of a young earth".

The problem is that to admit that there are some quite whopping mistakes in the book means giving up on the idea of her father as a ground-breakingly wise philosopher and self-taught genius, as well as on the certainty of being reincarnated into a world were everything is sorted out and the both of them are totally vindicated.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I think the part that is missing is that a lens is required to form an image. The eye has a lens and so do all cameras (except the pin hole camera, camera obscura, or holographic methods).

There is more than simply detecting photons needed in order to detect an image but it has nothing to do with efferent vision.

I never said it did, although in all cases where a photograph is taken, the object or image of that photograph is present (the photograph is not taken from detecting light alone), even if the image is not completely in view such as the case when we see the image in a mirror.

[LadyShea]

Visual Image Reconstruction from Human Brain Activity using a Combination of Multiscale Local Image Decoders.

Visual Image Reconstruction from Human Brain ...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl, you are right. I know of many Ph.D's that would have made better use of their time and money if they had become a tradesman.

That may or may not be the case. But certainly you must understand that getting a first class education has not precluded the great scientists from making great discoveries. However in order to make the claim of a great discovery you have to show a great discovery. It must be something that anyone can verify. Otherwise it is just so much brouhaha.

Having a formal education doesn't preclude someone from making a great discovery. By the same token, not getting a formal education doesn't exclude someone from making a great discovery. Of course it has to be verified, but due to the framework of thinking that we live by and accept -- and because these are not easy observations or relations to grasp the first time around --- it behooves everyone to take a little more time to understand these relations, even if it's to do more empirical testing, before rejecting it outright.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

And so far you ain't doing so good. But I think that is because you are way over your head. If you are gonna talk science you are gonna have to know science, and you don't know science. Not that Lessans appeared to know much science either.

That's the problem. He was a mathematician, and he was also well versed in philosophy and literature, which is how he made these discoveries. In other words, he came to these conclusions through the back door, so to speak.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

The thing you must understand is that a great deal of school learning is showing the students what is there, such as magnetic and electric fields, neurons, stars, tectonic plates and so forth. These are no more a theoretical exercises than leaning your numbers or ABCs. They constitute practical knowledge that you must have if you intend to proceed further.

Lessans did not dispute anything other than afferent vision. The truth is I don't have to know calculus to know that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8, because I can see that relation. Lessans saw certain relations. These accurate relations were not dependent on magnetic and electric fields, neurons, stars, and tectonic plates, or anything else, for their veracity. People are making a judgment that unless he knew this, he couldn't have discovered that, which is false.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

You don't have this knowledge so you would be doing yourself a great favor if you did not try to proceed. It just frustrates the rest of us. It would be like trying to teach a child to multiply that didn't bother to learn their numbers. Its a colossal waste of time.

That is not a fair analogy. If I want to proceed in understanding something that requires a basic foundation, I agree with you. That is exactly why Lessans urged everyone to read the text in the order in which it was written, which people did not do. But I can understand why man's will is not free, according to these principles, without understanding every theory that's out there. I can also understand his reasoning as to why [he believed] the eyes are not a sense organ, without being an expert on SR, chaos theory, supernovas, etc. since this is not the method in which he came to his conclusions. I have to say that I'm learning a lot, and it certainly doesn't hurt to know more about these interesting topics.

[LadyShea]

How do you think the Hubble receives and records images? I mean, if cameras/telescopes etc. have to focus on "what is actually there"?

How do you explain the Deep Field photograph?


Do you understand how a charge coupled devise works?

[Vivisectus]

I never said it did, although in all cases where a photograph is taken, the object or image of that photograph is present (the photograph is not taken from detecting light alone), even if the image is not completely in view such as the case when we see the image in a mirror.

But detecting light is all cameras do! It is how we designed and built them!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

That doesn't sound like a difficult problem. There are 15 different symbols (letters) repeated seven times and then grouped into three 7x5 matrix. If the blocks were arranged in sequential order ordered as five columns by seven rows it would solve the "puzzle". I'm assuming that "no letter is ever twice with the same letter" means that all adjacent blocks pairs have different letters.

It's not adjacent blocks pairs that have different letters; it's that no letter (adjacent or otherwise) is ever twice with the same letter.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

I certainly hope he has more to show to back his credentials as an amateur mathematician.

First get the answer right. Then you will then be in a better position to judge his credentials.

Yes, it's five columns and seven rows. And yes, no letter is ever twice with the same letter which means exactly what you said: all adjacent blocks pairs have different letters. If it's so simple, then you should be able to give me an answer within a reasonable amount of time.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

I already did. Just order the blocks in sequential order (a,b,c,d...) in collections of 5 columns by 7 rows. But I'll spell it out for you,


abcde
fghij
klmno
abcde
fghij
klmno
abcde

fghij
klmno
abcde
fghij
klmno
abcde
fghij

klmno
abcde
fghij
klmno
abcde
fghij
klmno


Not exactly a challenging problem. However if I were you I would not present this as a mathematical impossibility. It makes it look like you are trying to make Lessans out as something more than he is. It is not as if the problem presented is in any known collection of mathematical assertions waiting to be solved. Such statements would only impress those who know little to nothing about mathematics.

BTW, I'll bet that a child with such a set of blocks and a knowledge of their ABCs would be able to solve this problem in short order. I would not use this puzzle as some sort of example of Lessans the mathematician. It just makes you both look ridiculous.

Natural.atheist, that's not the answer. It's far from it. Here is the problem again:

Arrange 105 alphabetical blocks divided equally between A and O in groups of 3 and in 7 lines, so that no letter is ever twice with the same letter. Maybe I wasn't clear because the answer is in groups of 3, not groups of 5.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

No problem, please show two adjacent blocks with the same letter. Otherwise it is a solution.

Just change it to groups of three instead of five and it is still a solution. In fact it makes the puzzle easier.

You must have misunderstood the puzzle.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl, you've got a major problem on your hands. You've tasked yourself with defending the scientific and now mathematical claims of Lessans, but you are completely unprepared to do so.

I'm not defending a mathematical claim other than these principles, that have a mathematical (undeniable) basis. As far as this puzzle, I have the answer in front of me and you are way off.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But detecting light is all cameras do! It is how we designed and built them!

Exactly. They are light detectors. That's why exposure time is factor in photography. The deep field image from Hubble? It took 10 days for the CCD to detect all that light.

It was aimed at a seemingly empty part of space...we couldn't see anything there even with our most powerful telescopes. In fact, almost everyone assumed it was a total waste of 10 days of Hubble time, that it would return a picture of nothing...most everyone was astoundingly and happily wrong in their assumptions.

[LadyShea]

NA, from what we gathered previously, if your first group of 3 on line one is ABC then no other group of 3 on any line can use AB, AC, or BC together again

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Point One: Given that the optic nerve is the only neural connection between the retina and the brain, and that in humans at least, it contains afferent fibers only, then the mechanism by which the brain "looks out through the eyes" is apparently ... magic.

Not at all.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Point Two: It's demonstrably true that the brain uses impulses from the optic nerve to construct images. Not that you'll do so, but you might read up on the studies in which electrodes have been connected to the brains of cats to see what's happening in the brain as visual impulses come in from the optic nerve. Not only do these electrodes -- which are recording the firing of neurons in the brain -- produce actual images corresponding to what the cat is seeing, if the cat is looking at a person, you can even recognize facial features in those images.

Recognizing facial features that correspond with the light does not translate to the brain interpreting those same images as an image. Actually, this in no way negates efferent vision. I hope you see why.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Remember: this is an actual recording of what the cat's brain is doing, not some sort of speculation.

What the brain is doing is a far cry from a causal connection.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You wonder why people keep accusing you of willful ignorance, stupidity, and dishonesty? The answer is simple.

It has been repeatedly explained to you by many different people -- in overwhelming detail and in terms that could be readily understood by any reasonably intelligent grade-schooler -- how efferent vision and "real-time" seeing are both physically impossible and demonstrably false.

In response, you keep insisting that you "don't understand" how any of this disproves Lessans' claims. Assuming that you're telling the truth, and that you truly don't understand why Lessans' claims regarding the nature of sight are false -- that's a big assumption, admittedly -- there are only three logical possibilities.


Possibility One: You're willfully ignorant. There's a great deal of support for this conclusion, given that you've repeatedly admitted that you have no intention of making any serious effort to understand things such as neural physiology or Relativity Theory which disprove Lessans' claims. Moreover, you've demonstrated time and time and time again that you will summarily reject any evidence which contradicts Lessans' claims (while making no effort whatsoever to understand why it contradicts Lessans' claims), no matter how well-supported and carefully-conducted those experiments might be. But, hypocritically, you immediately and unquestioningly accept any unsourced, unsupported anecdotal claims which you think will support Lessans.

Personally, I vote for this possibility, given your repeated demonstrations of your eagerness to ignore evidence which contradicts your claims. You certainly give the impression that you go to great lengths to avoid learning things that you don't wish to think about.



Possibility Two: You're really, really stupid. Given that it is demonstrably true that we don't see efferently or in "real time," and that this fact has been pointed out to you with many different examples and many different explanations that any reasonably intelligent grade-school student could readily comprehend, it could be that you're simply too stupid to be capable of comprehending that you or Lessans could have been mistaken about something so basic.

I don't believe that. Your apparent ignorance of pretty-much all relevant information is too carefully-crafted to be the result of mere stupidity, it seems to me.

These first two possibilities are not mutually exclusive, of course.



Possibility Three: Somehow, you're in possession of knowledge which demonstrates that virtually all of modern science is wrong. All the thousands of studies of neural anatomy and the physiology of sight are wrong. Relativity Theory is wrong -- despite the fact that GPS systems, nuclear weapons and the like (which depend upon Relativity for their functions) actually work. And so forth.

I think we can safely disregard this possibility. Especially since you're doggedly refused to provide any actual evidence for your claims, which -- if true -- would mean that pretty-much all of modern science would have to be thrown out the window. And since you've repeatedly displayed your near-total ignorance of the scientific principles and methodology which you're disputing, and why they would have to be abandoned if Lessans' claims regarding the nature of vision were true.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, but no absolute proof. If you are going to condemn me for resisting your condemnation; you might as well condemn anyone who resists a conclusion that is not conclusive.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Of course, it's difficult to believe that you could possibly be as ignorant and/or stupid as you pretend to be. Which is why many people suspect that the simpler explanation is the correct one: you're lying.

Calling me names is very immature Lone. I'm surprised that a teacher of science could go that low.

[LadyShea]

Recognizing facial features that correspond with the light does not translate to the brain interpreting those same images as an image. Actually, this in no way negates efferent vision. I hope you see why.

What? The computer is interpreting the signals from the eye to the brain and coming up with an image that corresponds with what the cat is seeing, which means that the computer is mimicking exactly what is happening in the brain.

What do you think is happening in that experiment?

[Vivisectus]

If the common TV does not change her mind (which emits only light - there is no object to be seen except for a tv screen) then mere scientific experiments are not going to bother her much.

She is staring at clear evidence that the eyes detect light and translate this into an image every day in order to keep denying that this is what is happening!

What else does your computer monitor do, except for emit light of different colors?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Possibility four: she knows that Lessans was wrong but enjoys all the attention she gets pretending that she believes he was right - a kind of masochistic trolling.

(although personally I'm inclined to vote for possibility one)

I am not a masochist, and for you to use this ridiculous notion as a basis to negate this claim only indicates to me how completely removed you are from proving Lessans wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I see a distinction. In my version four, she would be knowingly telling lies; I would not call that, 'willful ignorance.'

I see willful ignorance more like your version five - she's happy with her current beliefs and doesn't want to risk losing them by attempting to understand what others are saying.

Please stop with your psychobabble ceptimus. You have no idea who Lessans was, and you certainly have no idea who I am. You are the one that is deluded. Should that be reason to psychoanalyze you? Maybe.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not a masochist, and for you to use this ridiculous notion as a basis to negate this claim only indicates to me how completely removed you are from proving Lessans wrong.

As previously noted, you lying little weasel, not a single person in this thread has ever used an ad hom argument to discredit you or Lessans. What has been used to discredit both of you is facts, data, evidence, observation, and good science.

Hey, peacegirl, previously you admitted that the light has to be present in order to see, and that it takes a certain amount of time to arrive at the eye. This directly contradicts Daddy, when he said that if God turned on the sun at noon, people would see it instantaneously. How dare you contradict Daddy! Has your two-person cult become schismatic?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all.

Then tell us what it is, if not magic. Let's see: on at least six previous occasions when pressed to identify the mechanism by which we actually see, since you deny that it is light, you have responded:

I DON'T KNOW.

Wow, that's some theory ya got going there!

Recognizing facial features that correspond with the light does not translate to the brain interpreting those same images as an image. Actually, this in no way negates efferent vision. I hope you see why.

What the brain is doing is a far cry from a causal connection.

Calling me names is very immature Lone. I'm surprised that a teacher of science could go that low.

Naming what you are, is not the same thing as calling you names.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the problem. He was a mathematician, and he was also well versed in philosophy and literature...

Lessans did not dispute anything other than afferent vision.

And, as has been repeatedly demonstrated to you, this little "dispute" of his would wipe out entire bodies of knowledge, if he were right. All of physics, chemistry and biology would have to be rewritten; his theory of seeing would rule out the existence of atomic weapons, since said weapons are a consequence of E=MC squared and said equation would be invalid if relativity theory were wrong, and that theory would have to be wrong if Lessans were right.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Calling me names is very immature Lone. I'm surprised that a teacher of science could go that low.

Well, it's a good thing that I didn't call you names then, isn't it?

I merely pointed out that there are a number of possible explanations for your peculiar behavior. One is that you're consciously lying. That's a distinct possibility, but it's not the explanation that I favor, personally. I think that the "religious fundamentalist" explanation works better.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans did not dispute anything other than afferent vision.

1. If efferent vision is true, as Lessans described, instantaneous transfer of information is possible via vision
2. The Theory of Relativity states instantaneous information transfer is not possible by any means
3. Several technologies only work if the Theory of Relativity is accurate
4. These technologies do in fact work

Therefore efferent vision contradicts the Theory of Relativity and would "negate proven technology" if it were true

Additionally: Unless you can offer a valid working definition or explanation of "seeing/sight" that is NOT circular and does not include the transfer/detection/gain of information then 1. holds as a valid premise and the rest follow

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you can't even consider anecdotal evidence as suggestive (e.g., dogs not being able to recognize their masters on a computer screen even though they acknowledge their master's voice) which is, in my view, more accurate than some of the unreliable empirical studies that have been done, indicates to me that you are just as biased as those you criticize.

What is with you and the focus on the damned dogs? As I pointed out at least 6 times

According to Lessen's, dogs can't recognize people by only their facial features, and humans can. For the sake of this explanation let's assume he was correct.

If vision is efferent: dogs cannot do what humans do (recognize someone by facial features alone) even though humans also have efferent vision.

If vision is afferent: dogs cannot do what humans do (recognize someone by facial features alone) even though humans also have afferent vision.

So if the premise "Dogs cannot recognize people by only their facial features" is true, and the premise "Humans can recognize people by only their facial features" is also true, then whether sight is afferent or efferent doesn't seem to be the cause of the difference.

In both cases the difference would be seem to be related to differences in how the dog brain processes information, not in how they see.

You've stated:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The premise is this: If afferent vision is true, dogs should be able to recognize their master from a picture.

Yet you've never explained why afferent vision should lead to this recognition. Recognition involves all sorts of interpretation and processing of what is seen (regardless of the mechanism of sight) which we both agree is an activity of the brain.

So your holding on to that completely unexplained and unsupported assumption of what you think is a necessary consequence of afferent sight (dog's recognizing faces), in the face of comprehensively explained and supported necessary consequences of efferent sight-like the negation of the Theory of Relativity- is mind boggling.

[Vivisectus]

Unless I am mistaken, you were made aware of tests that show that dogs can in fact recognize faces. Your response to that was to simply state the test must have been wrong.

[LadyShea]

Even if she's correct, and dogs can't recognize their master by facial features and all those tests are totally wrong, she hasn't explained why differences between human and dog facial recognition abilities are due to efferent sight, rather than differences in brain processes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

This must be it.

That was not a clear representation of the man. The guy even said he couldn't help but think the image looked catlike. It could be that the cat's skeleton was being scanned, not the man's face. Did they replicate this study to confirm their hunch? Did they perform the study on other animals?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If you didn't read the whole article, how do you you know that the part you read was the only portion that was pertinent to this discussion?

Actually, it isn't a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. What it is, is a perfect example of someone who knows what he is talking about telling you that you don't know what you are talking about. That is a whole different kettle of fish. Also, a horse of a different color.

If you don't think that the signals being transmitted from the retina, along the optic nerve to the brain, are carrying information that the brain decodes in order to generate an image, perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to tell us what you think the brain is doing with those signals.

Light strikes the optic nerve and this is relayed to the brain. The brain is then able to use those impulses to see. The brain lies right behind the eyes, which would mean that the brain and the eyes work in such a way that you can't separate the two. The first step is to do more empirical testing. If it shows that there is something to this claim, then the exact mechanism as to how efferent sight occurs can be formally mapped out.