A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

When will she address it? When hell freezes over, I'd imagine!

I'm still calling the concession on Hot Chocolate, (so I'm an optimist), and I hope Lessans can Ice Skate.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I win this argument, .

Peacegirl, that is just about the silliest thing you have said so far. Whether sight is afferent or efferent is not going to be decided on this forum. Whether man has free will or not is not going to be decided on this forum. Whether Lessans was an arrogant fool, and didn't know what he was talking about, has been demonstrated in his book, so this forum is again irrevelant. Why don't you go back to your family and make the best of what you have left, be a good mother and grandmother, do some good with your life.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Well, special relativity doesn't have 'real time'. Each observer has a separate time of their own - all equally valid.

ETA: LadyShea beat me to that one!

BTW, peacegirl doesn't believe time exists except as a man made construct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can anyone measure time as if it's a thing? We measure the effects of time, not time itself.

All I'm saying is that time is a measurement that is manmade. Without man's clocks to measure the passage of one moment to the next, there really is no time, there is just existence.

That's true, but time itself does not exist because we only have the present.

As far as time, it is always in relation to our units of measurement. But to say that time exists without humans to measure its passage is like saying time is conscious of itself.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still fail to understand...

... why there is no contradiction david. If we see efferently, light is a condition.

OK. We've established this. Light is a condition of seeing. Therefore, it must be present, as Lessans says. So far, so good.

... And if light is a condition, we don't have to see the sun at the same time we see each other.

Why not?

Lessans and you maintain that:

1. Light travels at a finite rate of speed.

2. Light is a condition of seeing, and that it must be present for anything to be seen.

3. If God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, but not see our neighbors for 8.5 minutes.

What can we glean form points 1. and 2. in conjunction with 3., apart from the fact that Lessans was nuts?

Two points.

1. It cannot be the case that we would see the light of the sun immediately, but not our neighbors for 8.5 minutes, because the source light (sun) and reflected light (off of the neighbors) is the same light. If it's the same light, then when you see the source light, you will see the reflected light at the same time, if what the light is reflected off of, is standing right next to you. Do you actually deny this, peacegirl? Are you really that crazy? And if you do deny it, explain how it is possible for us to see the source light, but not the reflected light, when it is the same light.

2. It cannot logically be the case that the light from the sun needs to be present for us to see the sun; AND that we see the sun immediately, IF, as Lessans says, light travels at a finite rate of speed, and would take 8.5 minutes to reach our eyes. In that case, by Lessans' own reasoning, we would have to wait 8.5 minutes to see the sun, because the light won't be present for that period of time. Thus, Lessans has contradicted himself.

Will you, or will you not, address this contradiction?

Like I said: when hell freezes over, you will.

4. I cannot continue the conversation with you because you are too invested in your belief that we can live in the past. If I win this argument, your whole world will crumble, and I really don't want to be messing up what gives you stability.

Back to projecting again, are we? Let's remember whose father we're talking about here. The only one whose world who would crumble is yours, if the realization ever dawned on you that you have wasted your life on Internet message boards defending tripe. As for myself, I can't wait to see major scientific theories overturned; I think that's neat.

[LadyShea]

No no david. If SR is replaced or overturned, you will lose your job, your house, family, probably your hair too, and you would never get laid again....it's all a personal stake, see

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So far we have some interesting new developments:

If we stimulate the retina via a micro-chip, which in turn is guided by a camera, the person we do this to experiences vague shapes, contrast, and shadows which correspond with what is there in reality, but this is not sight. Babies also apparently can detect faces well enough to mimic expressions at a certain distance. This is also not sight. Dogs can recognize objects and human faces on photographs which they have not seen before, and this is also not sight.

You have to admit that the struggle to hang on to the idea of sight as a direct, efferent process if starting to show some serious cracks.

I cannot help but be struck by the simple and elegant solution to this whole sight debacle: admit that while Lessans was absolutely correct in saying that what we see in our heads is very far removed from the data that our eyes actually provide to the brain, his conclusion of "the eye is not a sense organ and sight is not afferent" was mistaken.

There is a LOT of very good evidence around that shows us that what we think we see, IE the model that our brains present us with, is a far cry from the raw data that the eyes present to the brain. A lot of work is done on the raw data by the brain, and the resulting model is what we call "sight".

So the act of seeing is not just detecting. That is just a part of it. It is in fact modelling - putting the data together in a model that correctly predicts what is probably out there in reality. This modelling is something we have an innate talent for, and are hardwired to learn how to do.

This all fits in very elegantly with what Lessans is trying to express: the fact that while we tend to mistake the model for reality, it is merely a representation of what we have learned to expect to be out there, based on the input we receive.

This is perfectly suitable for his ideas about beauty, the power of conditioning, and the fact that he felt that what we see if often what we have been taught to see, not necessarily what is there.

If we replace "the eye is not a sense organ" and in stead say "Vision is not a simple passive process of detecting. It is an active process: we project that which the brain expects to find on top of what our eyes detect" then all of his ideas remain intact, and all of the conflicts with science disappear. To the contrary: modern science very much supports this notion, and every day we are learning more about how this works.

Remember: the final conclusion was that we project that which we have been conditioned to see. His beef was with the eyes as simple light-detectors, representing an absolute reality. As it turns out, science seems to be coming up with more and more results that are easily compatible with that.

But his explanation that the eyes somehow create a direct relationship with an external reality was mistaken. it is not the eyes that are physically efferent. It is just that one can say that sight, as a process, can be said to work in an efferent way, insofar that it is a process where our brains do indeed project certain things that it expects to find out there.

All this requires is that we amend and update a few parts of this book. We will have to abandon the idea that sight is instant. So what? It is not at all important to the main scheme of the book. Why does all of it have to be 100% correct?

It would be easy to make the book more palatable by just saying that the brain is projecting that which we are conditioned to see. But the basic problem still remains. How do we get conditioned in the first place? Secondly, the knowledge that all we have is the present was an important premise that allowed him to understand why death is not the end. Finally, I would never amend his book and update a few parts because it's not even proven that he's wrong at this point, and even if the evidence is against him, it's not my book to amend. I know you mean well Vivisectus, but I'm sorry to say we're stuck with his version of efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is very much exampled in SCUBA diving and underwater photography. We don't really realize just how distorted color is underwater until we compare ambient light underwater photographs with what we saw.

Our brain seems to auto-correct to some extent and gives us an image of what we should be seeing, while the camera records the light dispassionately and objectively.

This auto-correction is not dependent on afferent vision so I'm not sure why you brought it up other than just to make an interesting point.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans didn't describe the world he envisioned would result from the extension of the principles from his discoveries?

Yes, but as I said all along, taking a few pages out of context does not show how relationships will actually work. I mean, come on LadyShea, you were in on this by saying that love is nothing more than falling in love with a person's genitals, which is very misleading. This was not fair of you, David, or Vivisectus to jump ahead to this chapter when I asked you not to do this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well, the evidence will only come after we are dead, it promises a happy afterlife, the Big Change is going to happen in the future, but curiously did not happen when the prophet predicted it would, it contradicts scientific knowledge... the similarities are pretty huge.

Also, you have to accept it without evidence, on the say-so of someone who is proffered as an authority figure. The book that tells you about it is said to be infallible...

It pretty much ticks all the boxes.

It does not compare Vivisectus. This knowledge is all about the here and now. Yes, efferent vision contradicts science at this point. But this knowledge is not metaphysical. It is falsifiable and can be proved true or false through empirical testing which so far is not conclusive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He's not making fun of you. Hearing and scent and tactile sensations are all afferent according to you and Lessans, correct? That means we experience those sensations after a slight delay between the sensory output at the source to the input in our ears/nose/skin then brain. Does this mean we hear and smell the past? Yes, it does.

Why is the mere thought of sight sharing that delay so hard for your to accept?

It's not hard for me to accept if it was true. But what if it isn't true? Wouldn't you want to know? This knowledge changes our relationship with the external world and what we think we see, so it would seem that doing more testing would be in order.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no such thing as "real time".

Additionally, if you accept that frame of reference changes what one sees and when they see it, how can you possibly maintain that Lessans was correct that someone on RIGEL, 800 light years away, would share the same "real time"?

Because seeing lightning from the perspective of someone on a fast moving train versus someone seeing the same lightning standing on solid ground does not mean the lightning that both are seeing is being interpreted by the brain. These are two separate phenomena.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Well, special relativity doesn't have 'real time'. Each observer has a separate time of their own - all equally valid.

ETA: LadyShea beat me to that one!

Maybe we should substitute "real time" for "the present". We all live in the present. I can't be living in the past and you living in the future. There is no such thing as the past or future except as a conception in our mind. I hope you can agree with that. This has become semantics more than anything.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not hard for me to accept if it was true. But what if it isn't true? Wouldn't you want to know? This knowledge changes our relationship with the external world and what we think we see, so it would seem that doing more testing would be in order.

Pascal's Wager again, which fails because there us literally nothing compelling enough about Lessans' ideas on vision to warrant reconsideration of the scientific model of vision.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not hard for me to accept if it was true. But what if it isn't true? Wouldn't you want to know? This knowledge changes our relationship with the external world and what we think we see, so it would seem that doing more testing would be in order.

Why did you think Vivisectus was making fun of you?

And there isn't a single reason in the world, whatsoever, to think that science is wrong about vision. There has been nothing presented that even brings it into question. If some evidence comes along demonstrating a problem with the physics, or biology, or anatomy, or neurology, of sight, light, or time I will read whatever is published with great interest.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be easy to make the book more palatable by just saying that the brain is projecting that which we are conditioned to see. But the basic problem still remains. How do we get conditioned in the first place? Secondly, the knowledge that all we have is the present was an important premise that allowed him to understand why death is not the end. Finally, I would never amend his book and update a few parts because it's not even proven that he's wrong at this point, and even if the evidence is against him, it's not my book to amend. I know you mean well Vivisectus, but I'm sorry to say we're stuck with his version of efferent vision.

Ah I see - but then you truly believe that time is not relative. Not for a rational reason, but merely because you need time to work like that, or else the theory does not work. This is working backwards - you assume it is right first, and then find out what else is required to continue to believe it is true. Time being relative, however, is something that is no longer theoretical. We have measured the effects of speed and gravity on atomic clocks, and we even found that we need to take it into account when we use satellites.

I see that you more or less admit that you are not terribly interested in anything but confirmation of this work, even if the evidence against it is compelling. I realize that your reaction would be that it is not compelling to you.

I can see that if we tried to bring the book in line with scientific knowledge, some important concepts in it would fall apart. That means it can only be accepted on faith. You are entitled to your faith.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're lying again. That's not nice.

[My emphasis.]

I corrected this. The moon does not have to be in view for an image to turn out, but the photons being reflected have to be in a direct line, or bounce off of a surface toward the lens. Therefore, the moon has to be present. It can't fall into a black hole and the photons that were emitted centuries ago be picked up by a pinhole camera, creating an image of what is not present anymore. This is the debate in a nutshell.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We were talking about the color of the object reflecting onto some other object and that color (which is light only) being photographer even though the object reflecting the color is not "in view of the camera's lens".

That's a a horse of another color. Going back to rainbows for example, they are pure light but it's how the light interacts with the atmosphere. If the sun disappeared, so would the light even if it took time for this to happen.

A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that causes a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines on to droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere. It takes the form of a multicoloured arc. Rainbows caused by sunlight always appear in the section of sky directly opposite the sun.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're getting really good at the subject change attempts .

I'm not trying to change subjects on purpose.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are saying that the light would still be traveling at a finite speed and therefore a picture of the moon would still be possible.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not of the moon, no, it's too close. The light from the moon arrives in less than 2 seconds. Not far enough away for there to be a noticeable time delay

Two seconds is quite long. I believe with the technology we have we would be able to see a slight delay.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why you are claiming that an event from the past (such as Columbus discovering America) could be seen by someone on another planet if the light from that event happened to arrive there. This is completely theoretical; the evidence that scientists are drawing upon comes from logic, and logic can be wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not from logic, it's from evidence...one of those evidences being the existence of functional technologies that rely on this to be true.

But the conclusions that are being drawn from the evidence is logical, and logic can be wrong. This is how science works, correct?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can see light that has traveled from point A to point B. I already agreed with that. But we are seeing that light in real time. The belief is that no matter how far and wide light travels, we will always see an image of the past coming from those lightwaves. Once again, if the light source is no longer there, the brain will not be able to interpret the signals coming from the light as an image because that is not how we see, if Lessans is right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This makes no sense and doesn't address any of the many, many points I've made.

I hope I've answered some of your points in this thread. Let me know if I haven't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am so tired of discussing this. Can we change the subject?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not in this thread. If you'd like to discuss other topics with me, feel free to join in the myriad other discussions here at

I only meant the discussion on light. There is a lot of discussion left in this thread other than whether the eyes are a sense organ.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe we should substitute "real time" for "the present". We all live in the present. I can't be living in the past and you living in the future. There is no such thing as the past or future except as a conception in our mind. I hope you can agree with that.

Nope. See eternalism, especially as it relates to the theory of relativity. All of which I've already discussed, of course, and which predictably you ignored, except to mangle the meaning of it in a couple of posts and attribute the mangling to me, in your typically dishonest fashion.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the sun disappeared, so would the light even if it took time for this to happen.

If the sun disappeared we would stop seeing its light in about 8 minutes, here on Earth. However the sun's light that has already been emitted will keep traveling in all directions indefinitely until/unless it is absorbed.

Mars would receive the light longer than we would, Jupiter longer than that, and so on through the cosmos.

So, if we stopped seeing the Sun right now, let's call Earth time E, it will be another 4 minutes or so before someone on Mars would stop seeing it so Mars time (M) or M=E+4minutes. Someone on Uranus (U) would see it another 2.5 hours so U=E+150minutes

Two seconds is quite long. I believe with the technology we have we would be able to see a slight delay.

True, super high speed cameras would be able to take a picture of the moon for another full second if the moon disappeared one second ago Moon time (E-2seconds)

Depends on the amount and type of evidences being used and what is being posited. The speed of light and distances are known numerical values. How we detect and see/photograph light is also a known process.

Is the conclusion 2 from the available evidence 1+1 "logical" and subject to being wrong?

Now, if the only evidence we have is 2, that opens up a whole lot of possible conclusions (as has been demonstrated), and we will would have to look in many directions to see if we can find any other part of the equation to help narrow it down.

In this case, we have all the evidence we need to conclude that 1+1=2

You didn't explain your above statement at all. Try again, please.

I meant in this thread I am mostly interested in discussing light, time, and sight.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I corrected this. The moon does not have to be in view for an image to turn out, but the photons being reflected have to be in a direct line, or bounce off of a surface toward the lens. Therefore, the moon has to be present. It can't fall into a black hole and the photons that were emitted centuries ago be picked up by a pinhole camera, creating an image of what is not present anymore. This is the debate in a nutshell.

Where are you getting "centuries" with regards to the moon? Are you talking about Earth's moon? Are you talking about a pinhole camera on Earth? If so, the light from the would moon have already been absorbed here on Earth within a few seconds, and could no longer be seen or photographed.

And a pinhole camera is not sensitive enough to pick up light from Earth's moon from hundreds of light years away, which is the only thing that makes sense when you talk about centuries.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, if you understood what we were talking about, and still disagreed, and were able to coherently articulate your disagreements, we would be having a whole different discussion.

However you keep demonstrating you don't understand, at all. Like your statement above about the moon, centuries and a pinhole camera...that is pure ignorance of all the factors on display right there. How can you disagree with something when you don't even know what it is?

To use one of your cliches, we keep trying to explain and describe oranges and you keep saying "I disagree with apples".

Isn't that what you keep accusing us of...that we don't understand Lessans and so our disagreements aren't valid? Why are you doing the same thing? Lessans only gave us conclusions to look at, and his personal logic for drawing them. We have given you data and evidence from which to draw conclusions.

[LadyShea]

I just posted this over in another thread, but it answers your question "isn't that how science works?" and addresses your weird expectation that one piece of evidence can or should be conclusive in and of itself.

This, right here, is how science works. Some researchers found something that contradicted the current thinking/dogma. They kept pushing and finally got it published. Other researchers were very interested and started conducting their own experiments which seems to support the initial researchers. More and more will be done, and the body of evidence will eventually weigh more heavily one way or the other...there needs be no conclusive individual piece of evidence, you see, to reach a rational conclusion after reviewing all the available evidence.

Neuroscience: In their nurture : Nature News

DNA methylation was thought to be stable. For this reason, says Szyf, the paper struggled through the review process, and was rejected by both Nature and Science. "The main review was, 'We never heard that DNA methylation changes after birth'," he says. "Something that doesn't fit with their dogma has to be wrong."

After two-and-a-half years, the paper found an outlet in Nature Neuroscience in 2004. And among behavioural neuroscience researchers, Meaney says, it caused a stir. "They understood immediately that epigenetic mechanisms were a great candidate that could explain the enduring effects of the early environment," he says. A deluge of research projects ensued, and are beginning to bear fruit. In December, Dietmar Spengler at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich, Germany, and his colleagues showed that separating mouse pups from their mothers for short periods of time reduced the methylation near the arginine vasopressin gene, possibly leading to a depression-like condition4. In May, David Sweatt at the University of Alabama at Birmingham showed that stress in early life changed the methylation status of the rat Bdnf genes, which encodes a growth factor involved in brain development and plasticity5.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Pascal's Wager again, which fails because there us literally nothing compelling enough about Lessans' ideas on vision to warrant reconsideration of the scientific model of vision.

Then why are you wasting your time here? I don't get it. I wouldn't waste my time for something that sounded ridiculous.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why are you wasting your time here? I don't get it. I wouldn't waste my time for something that sounded ridiculous.

Because he is a scientist* and scientists like to discuss things?

*Either by profession or as a hobby or both, I am not sure. He takes microscopic photographs, and that requires specialized equipment and knowledge.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why are you wasting your time here? I don't get it. I wouldn't waste my time for something that sounded ridiculous.

I wouldn't waste my time arguing a position that everyone I was talking to thought was ridiculous, yet here you are.

I would never go try to convince the Freepers that single payer socialized medicine is by far the best and most humane model of delivering health care in a society.

We're all different I guess.