A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl, I've told you this before. The eye has a lens. It happens to be a flexible lens. We flex muscles in our eye to change the focal length. But if the muscle is not working the lens still has a focal length. Bring an object to the right distance for that focal length and an image will form.

I don't see how a clear image can form, even at close proximity, when both eyes are not working together.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

It so happens that infants can't focus but if you place your face close to their face you will be in focus. However they will not be able to focus on things across the room. That is why in the videos of mimicking infants the faces are close to each other.

I reviewed this video. It doesn't even look like the baby was looking directly at his father. He was looking to the left.

Newborn Mimic - YouTube

In the following videos, the babies were definitely imitating.

our son sticking out his tongue at his dad -...

&NR=1

My son mimicking his daddy - YouTube

&feature=grec_index

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

But even if you discount everything I've told you here, you can't say that infants can't see something. All you can say is that you and Lessans can't explain it.

I never said they can't see something; they just can't see before their eyes are focused. Scientists believe the ciliary muscles need development. Lessans said it's not the muscles of the eye that need development, but the brain that needs stimulation.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 117-118

“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.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

And at a minimum you need to stop using infants as some kind of proof for your "efferent vision" idea because it doesn't fit.

So lets see how sincere you are about your open mindedness.

You certainly can't demand from us what you are not willing to do yourself.

I'm not demanding what I'm not willing to do myself. I don't see proof that infants can see well enough to mimic. At 51/2 weeks this baby did stick his tongue out, but whether he was imitating his father is questionable since he was not looking directly at him. There is no proof in this video that this was what the baby was doing, even though they both stuck out their tongues in close succession.

[LadyShea]

I don't see how a clear image can form, even at close proximity,

See my previous post on how you can demonstrate this with a magnifying glass and a piece of paper!

I don't see how a clear image can form...when both eyes are not working together.

So you think people without binocular vision can't see clear images? Hmm, since I do not have binocular vision myself (amblyopia), yet can see perfectly well at optimal distances, or with my glasses on (my good eye is a bit nearsighted) I disprove that idea.

*I do not have depth perception as those with binocular vision have it, but my brain has done an amazing job of adapting as I do not run into walls or grasp at empty air trying to pick up my coffee cup.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your kind demeanor in the beginning belied your intentions. You have no intentions of understanding this knowledge. You are here to confront it, with no proof whatsoever. I would hate to put you on ignore, but I might have to.

Well this is pretty much standard fare for Peacegirl. People try to be nice and explain how things really are or try to help her improve her presentation, but anything other than complete agreement is met with hostility and her 'pretend ignore'. Apart from posting accurate information to counter Peacegirls fiction, there isn't much progress to be made here, and addressing Peacegirl directly is useless, you may as well be talking to the blank screen of undeniable substance.

[LadyShea]

I never said they can't see something; they just can't see before their eyes are focused. Scientists believe the ciliary muscles need development.

They can see, just not well except at the optimal distance for their fixed shaped lenses (which for newborns is 8-15 inches away, or about the distance to a nursing mother's face). Until the muscles are developed enough to allow for the lens shape to be changed as needed, focus is determined only by distance. Really is this that difficult a concept?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see how a clear image can form, even at close proximity, when both eyes are not working together.

I happen to be near sighted, I can form an image 6 inches from my eyes and there is no double image.

But be that as it may, the infant sees something because they are mimicking what the see.

So you can't say that a newborn can't see. Lessans was clearly wrong on this point. And since it doesn't matter to human vision how dogs see, Lessans has provided nothing valid to kick off his whole efferent vision assertion.

peacegirl. I don't know much about what you and Lessans call efferent vision, but is there some reason for why an infant can't see efferently?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The shysters here can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the "preponderance of evidence" is the legal standard in civil suits. In criminal cases the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" That is considerably more stringent than "preponderance of evidence". The death penalty is not an option in civil suits.

Peer-review is no guarentee of accuracy, this is true. Nevertheless, it does provide more reason to take an article seriously than does the complete absence of any peer-review.

Not necessarily.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we attached a stimulator to the retina, and hooked it up to a camera. Visual information appeared int he brain. Rudimentary, it is true, but hey! Give us another decade or so, and we should be able to improve this a lot. How are shadows and patterns not visual information? Last I checked we see shadows and patterns - we do not feel or smell them.

As for the babies, NA already provided you with a simple observation that disproves what Lessans said.

Visual information in the form of shadows and patterns is not true sight, just as auditory noises inside the ear is not true hearing.

[LadyShea]

Infant vision according to Lessans from peacegirls above post. I snipped the superfluous crap to provide only the important points.

Originally Posted by Lessans

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.

if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer 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.

So, according to Lessans, stimulation of the other four senses is a necessary condition for sight development.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said they can't see something; they just can't see before their eyes are focused. Scientists believe the ciliary muscles need development.

These muscles allow you to form an image of faces at different distances. However if they are not developed enough to change the shape of the eye lens then only objects at a single distance will be in focus. For infants that is about the distance between a mothers and infants face while nursing.

Lessans said it's not the muscles of the eye that need development, but the brain that needs stimulation.

Okay, so he said it. So what? You may be cowed by everything Lessans ever wrote or said, but I am not. He can write anything he likes. Infants still mimic.

newborn baby demonstrates her ability to imitate...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Visual information in the form of shadows and patterns is not true sight, just as auditory noises inside the ear is not true hearing.

Sure it is. Hearing something is hearing and seeing something is seeing, even if they are greatly impaired.

Once again, I do not have binocular vision due to amblyopia. The visual information I receive is greatly diminished from what others receive. Are you saying I do not have true sight?

Does someone with an 80% hearing loss not truly hear that 20% of what they hear?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not demanding what I'm not willing to do myself. I don't see proof that infants can see well enough to mimic. At 51/2 weeks this baby did stick his tongue out, but whether he was imitating his father is questionable since he was not looking directly at him. There is no proof in this video that this was what the baby was doing, even though they both stuck out their tongues in close succession.

Good girl peacegirl. Your daddy would be proud. But this is no way to sell books.

In any case if you stick with this then you are gonna have to heavily re-edit the book to take out all the statements alluding to the infallibility of science. Because infant mimicking is science. Otherwise people will immediately think Lessans is a cook.

You see, by the time youtube videos show up of people trying this experiment on their newborns, it is common knowledge. They are gonna know that Lessans didn't have a clue.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 117-118

“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.

I'm sure this has been asked before, but are children born deaf incapable or seeing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We were discussing the definition of sight/seeing/vision, not determinism.

Nice subject changing attempt though.

I was not discussing determinism, and made no mention of it, so your response is irrelevant.

It was relevant. I wasn't obligated to refer to sight. We were talking about definitions so any example would do.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have made a repeated request for you to define sight/seeing/vision in a way that is not circular and that does not include the transfer/gain/detection of information and/or data.

If you cannot define it in such a way, I offered you the option of explaining what is happening in reality where sight/seeing/vision does NOT include transfer/gain/detection of information and/or data

I don't know how to satisfy the definition you want. I have never been circular, and I have already explained why I don't believe efferent vision can be disqualified on the grounds that it's faster than light since nothing is traveling.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We were talking about definitions so any example would do.

Nice try. We were discussing the definition of sight/vision so no, not any example would do.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have made a repeated request for you to define sight/seeing/vision in a way that is not circular and that does not include the transfer/gain/detection of information and/or data.

If you cannot define it in such a way, I offered you the option of explaining what is happening in reality where sight/seeing/vision does NOT include transfer/gain/detection of information and/or data

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how to satisfy the definition you want.

I want YOUR definition or explanation of sight/vision/seeing, that explains what exactly it is.

If you were writing the definition for the dictionary, so others understood what you meant when you said "Sight" or "Vision" or "Seeing", what would you write?

Non circular means you cannot define the word by itself, like "Sight it seeing" or "Vision is seeing" or "Sight is vision".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The above statement contradicts the statement below.

If the reflection is not the object, and the object must be in view of the cameras lens, what object is being photographed when you photograph a reflection?

When you photograph a reflection you are photographing an image of the object. To take a photograph of an image, the actual object has to be present. Because of the way light bends, the object may not be in view of the camera, granted, but it's always present. If the object was removed, there would be no image to photograph.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

TLR was responding with a photograph of a reflection, which refutes your recent statements that a "reflection is not the object" and "the object must be in view of the camera lens"
I explained how the reflection is the object in such a photograph according to you, giving you an out
You claim we are both wrong

So how you gonna weasel now?

The reflection is not the object. The reflection is an image of the object.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe efferent vision can be disqualified on the grounds that it's faster than light since nothing is traveling.

Information about the object being seen is attained during the process of seeing, yes or no?

If no, then what is seeing if not perceiving, detecting, attaining, or otherwise gaining information about something that is not inside your brain?

If yes, then information has traveled from point A (whatever is being seen) to point B (your brain).

[naturalist.atheist]

Here is one shot in a mirror no less.

Baby imitation - YouTube

&NR=1

[LadyShea]

The reflection is an image of the object.

Explain and/or define "image", with regards to a photograph of a reflection, that does not include the camera detecting and creating an image from light itself.

If the object is not traveling to the mirror then bouncing off to be in the camera's field of view then what is the camera detecting and how does it create an image?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Explain and/or define "image", with regards to a photograph of a reflection, that does not include the camera detecting and creating an image from light itself.

If the object is not traveling to the mirror then bouncing off to be in the camera's field of view then what is the camera detecting and how does it create an image?

Forget cameras, what are we seeing? If we see efferently then why is it that we can't see objects behind us without a mirror?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, on their way, because "the photons left a star 20 minutes ago"

What are you talking about? Are you able to read English?

I created a hypothetical of a star having already emitted photons 20 minutes ago (in all possible directions), photons that are now traveling at the speed of light through space. They left the star and are already 100's of thousands of miles away from the star's original location, but then the star itself was sucked into a black hole 15 minutes later so is not emitting photons NOW.

Where are those photons that were emitted 20 minutes ago from a star that ceased to exist 5 minutes ago, do you think?

I am now beginning to think N.A. is absolutely correct. You do not have the ability to even comprehend what we are talking about.

How on Earth did you read all this nonsense into my very clear hypothetical?

Look, it all boils down to whether images can be seen without the light source. If light travels and carries the frequencies and wavelength of a star that has gone into a black hole, it is assumed we would see the past because the light is independent of the star itself. That is the big question mark. Would we?

[LadyShea]

We can see reflections, rainbows, words and pictures on computer monitors, the aurora, lasers, and images on TV screens because they are images, which is just the same as an object. Or something. This in no way means we detect light itself.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look, it all boils down to whether images can be seen without the light source.

Good point peacegirl. The only images I can see without a light source are mental images. What you might call "inward seeing". But for me personally, everything else requires light.

How do you do it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Explain and/or define "image", with regards to a photograph of a reflection, that does not include the camera detecting and creating an image from light itself.

If the object is not traveling to the mirror then bouncing off to be in the camera's field of view then what is the camera detecting and how does it create an image?

The camera creates an image because of the light that is reflected off of the person. I'm confusing you by saying "in the camera's field of view." The person is not in the camera's field of view in that instant, but the person is there. If the person fell into a black hole and disappeared, would we see an image of that person in the mirror?

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Forget cameras, what are we seeing? If we see efferently then why is it that we can't see objects behind us without a mirror?

Because we don't have eyes in the back of our head, that's why. How could we see objects behind us without light reflecting off of those objects onto a mirror which would then allow us to see an image of what is behind us?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look, it all boils down to whether images can be seen without the light source. If light travels and carries the frequencies and wavelength of a star that has gone into a black hole, it is assumed we would see the past because the light is independent of the star itself. That is the big question mark. Would we?

Yes of course. Because light is simply released energy and once released it exists independently of its source.

Energy can not be created or destroyed, remember (Laws of Thermodynamics), so if the source of the light, in this case a star, is gone in a back hole, the energy it already released in the form of light still exists and travels until/unless it is absorbed and converted to some other form of energy (by transduction, for example, or photosynthesis, or conversion to a digital value as in Hubble's CCD)

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because we don't have eyes in the back of our head, that's why. How could we see objects behind us without light reflecting off of us onto a mirror which would allow us to see an image?

Okay, let me see if I understand you. You can't see an image in a mirror unless there is light that reflects off you?