A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Okay. I don't know if anyone has brought this up but "efferent vision" as described by Lessans and reiterated by peacegirl has been shown to be wrong billions of times by billions of people.

Total solar eclipse.

If people see with "efferent vision" then they should not see total solar eclipses the way they see them. Because of the 1.3 light second delay between the earth and the moon there will be 1.3 second difference between the instantaneous position of the sun and the apparent position as the moon moves out of the way. During totality if people saw with "efferent vision" the "efferent" sun would be visible 1.3 second before the light arrived to bounce off all the people around them so they would be in darkness because the moon would appear to be blocking the light from the sun. Also if you were recording the event with a video camera you would notice that first light in the camera would lag what you saw visually by 1.3 seconds.

But nobody ever sees that. No one has ever reported it. It has never ever been recorded.

So for the billions of instances of people viewing a total solar eclipse it behaves exactly the way it should appear if we see things only by light.

People do not have "efferent vision".

So peacegirl, lets see just how stubborn you can be. Is everyone not seeing a total solar eclipse correctly?

And if you were looking for an experiment to determine if "efferent vision" exists, then this would be an easy experiment to setup. Just setup a video camera with good audio pickup of the people observing the event and ask people to verbally announce when they see the first light. If there is "efferent vision" then there should be a 1.3 second difference. You could run it on both sides of the event. When the sun disappears and when it reappears. Setup several cameras at several locations.

This would also be easy to setup with camera obscura (pin hole camera) and simple sound recorders if you didn't want to spend much money. Have a group watch the eclipse via the camera obscura and the other group view the eclipse directly and have each group use a different sound, such as one use a clicker and the other use a beep to signal when they see first light. If sight is "efferent" there should be a 1.3 second statistical difference between the beeps and the clicks, which should be easily detected on a sound recording. If we only see by light alone then there should be no statistical difference.

You might also be able to record the first light event by having the participants setup their cell phones to send a tweet when they see first light. So you wouldn't even need to get recorders. Then all you would need to build is some camera obscura which could be easily made out of discarded cardboard boxes, tape and aluminum foil.

peacegirl, this experiment is easily within the budget of anybody. All it take is a little planning. Just consult a calendar for the next total eclipse, make your camera obscura and make sure the participants can send a tweet on their cell phones, work out the analysis on some test data, and then use social media like facebook, google+ or meetup to setup the event. You might even have the participants make their own camera obscura so all you would have to do is just organize the experiment and analyze the data.

There might be some time lag issues on sending the tweet so it may require a simple app to package the event time into the tweet, but that could easily be done. Google has all sorts of free application development tools of various complexity for people to make apps.

But I already know what the results will show. There is no such thing as "efferent vision".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

So peacegirl, lets see just how stubborn you can be. Is everyone not seeing a total solar eclipse correctly? Are we not using our video cameras correctly?

Good luck with that, I see that you have yet to plumb the depths of Peacegirls stubbornness, it boggels the mind.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's more like Jane Goodall explaining how monkeys relate to one another in a social setting (which she's been studying for years), and you telling her that she has not proved that all monkeys of the same species act that way because it's only one demographic.

Goodall studied chimpanzees, not monkeys.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 116

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is
defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual
receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five
senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.’ But this is
a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is
defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual
receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five
senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.’ But this is
a wholly fallacious observation where the ears are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than sound, strikes the ear drum as stimuli do upon the organs of sight, taste, touch and smell.

Note that Lessans' objection to treating the eye as a sense organ applies equally well to the ear. If sight is efferent, then hearing must be also.

In any case, as TLR has already pointed out, on several occasions, light does not actually strike the optic nerve.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Good luck with that, I see that you have yet to plumb the depths of Peacegirls stubbornness, it boggels the mind.

I fully expect peacegirl to stick with "efferent vision". It's pretty clear that facts just do not matter to her.

[Vivisectus]

NA, we also brought up the fact that because stars move relative to us and are many lightyears away, a camera should see a radically different picture of the night sky then our eyes, as the camera needs to wait for light to arrive while we should see the stars where they are today.

I never really got a good explanation for this either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Repeating it isn't explaining it. Asserting it in the first place isn't explaining it.

Do you understand the objection? Do you understand why we keep saying instantaneous sight, aka real time seeing, is incompatible with Relativity and Causality?

No, I don't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Living in another time is not part of the objection. You are offering to concede to a strawman.

Try again.

You are being very patronizing, and it's not becoming. Regardless of SR and how it affects time (according to Einstein), there is no such thing as living in the past, or living in the future. We live in the here and now, see in the here and now, and die in the here and now.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

*Also, as soon as the words are out of your mouth or fingers, they are now a few seconds in the past.

The frequency being transmitted from my words is traveling which means that there is a time element (unlike the eyes), but I am speaking in the here and now, and you are receiving the sound in the hear and now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you wrote a new chapter it wouldn't be a lie. You would, in fact, be a co-author. This is done frequently when up<a href="http://jxliu.com/click/?s=63452&c=512919" style="color:#006600;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:underline;background:none;padding:0;mar gin:0;">dating</a> older works of non-fiction. As you said, it's not a religious work, right? It's not the words of an infallible deity, right?

I have a book about raising children that used Dr. Spock's original writings, then the co-author expanded, explained, and even offered corrections based on new information from developmental science.

You already admitted to adding a bunch of "examples" some of which you plagiarized.

Adding examples coming from someone's own words (I realize the sources of this information could have been mistaken) is not redoing someone's original concept. You keep putting this in the category of a contingent truth based on new information. It is not a contingent truth; it is a necessary truth whether you see it or not. You are the one who is acting overconfident and beyond correction LadyShea.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I don't.

Is that because you refuse to understand, or because you are unable to comprehend the objection?


1. If efferent vision is true, as Lessans described, instantaneous transfer of information is possible via vision

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).

2. The Theory of Relativity (as does Causality) 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

[Vivisectus]

Ok, I will offer an example of someone who lives in a (slightly) different now from me: you.

Our temporal frames of reference are slightly different from one another. If the both of us got together, and each took an atomic clock that run precisely in unison, and took those clocks away with us when we went home, they would start to deviate from one another in a way that has nothing to do with the level of accuracy of the clocks themselves.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are being very patronizing, and it's not becoming.

You're acting like a rather stupid child, also unbecoming

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of SR and how it affects time (according to Einstein), there is no such thing as living in the past, or living in the future. We live in the here and now, see in the here and now, and die in the here and now.

Define "here and now", please. Is it this billionth of a second? How about this one? This one? Is it now, now or is it a fraction of a second ago as soon as you are done reading THIS word?

The frequency being transmitted from my words is traveling which means that there is a time element (unlike the eyes), but I am speaking in the here and now, and you are receiving the sound in the hear and now.

Is it or is it not always a fraction of a second later that it was a billionth of a second ago?

You hear what was spoken a fraction of a second ago, never ever right now. So, is the "here and now" defined as a span of a second, 5 seconds, 5 minutes? Is an hour the "here and now"?

You do not understand time at all, do you?

[peacegirl]

His observations were based reading a tremendous amount of history and literature. His insights (along with his reasoning ability) allowed him to see universal principles that are not based on demographics and do not apply to only certain groups. He had a very rational basis for coming to his conclusions based on his observations.

But they do have a certain nature LadyShea. You are just being stubborn for the sake of argumentation, and it's getting cumbersome for me because we are going in circles, we will never get into the meat of the book, and you will be proclaimed the winner of this thread, which you're not.

I said the social behavior of certain species; not all monkeys.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you admit he extrapolated, or more specifically generalized?

How is any truth found? You can't test the whole world LadyShea unless you have superpowers. It's called induction; going from the specific to the general.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If, however, you are trying to claim that you have special insight into the workings of a car and that you have a method of improving how cars function, not knowing how the engine works makes that claim a rather arrogant and ignorant one that nobody will be inclined to listen to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In that case I would need to know the workings of the inside of a car. But Jane Goodall, from her careful observations, is helping to save the chimps and other endangered species.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Jane Goodall has not been able to prevent chimps from acting like chimps. They still fight amongst themselves and even have tribal battles. Some think her methods even led to strife

Don't compare chimps to man, as if there's no difference. They might be closer to our species than other species, but they are not humans. Our brains have the ability to solve problems that chimps and other animals cannot. Lessans is not changing man's nature; he is showing that we have the intellectual capacity to create a new paradigm, but still within the limits of our own nature.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction: pp. 1-2

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind
system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible
truths that no wonder it wasn’t found until now. But by
demonstrating its power a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced which
compels this fantastic change in the direction our nature has been
traveling, performing what will be called miracles though they do not
transcend the laws of nature.

The same nature that allowed Hitler to
slaughter six million Jews, that permits the most heinous crimes and
all the other evils of human relation is going to veer so sharply in a
different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and
their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in
such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. Laugh if you
will but your smile of incredulity will be wiped from your face once
you begin to read the text chapter by chapter of which the first two are
most fundamental. If you find this difficult to believe does this mean
you have a desire to dismiss what I have to say as nonsense? If it
does, then you have done what I tried to prevent, that is, jumped to
a premature conclusion. And the reason must be that you judged
such a permanent solution as impossible and therefore not deserving
of further consideration which is a normal reaction, if anything, when
my claims are analyzed and compared to our present understanding
of human nature. Most of the world is convinced that war and crime
are part of the human condition and can only be appeased, not
eradicated.

Another reason for such pessimism is that suffering sadly
robs its victims of the ability to dream or have the breadth of vision
to even contemplate the possibility of peace. The evil in the world has
so constricted man’s imagination that his mind has become hardened,
and he shows contempt for anyone who dares to offer a solution
because such claims appear ludicrous and unfounded. Just bear in
mind how many times in the course of history has the impossible (that
which appeared to be) been made possible by scientific discoveries,
which should make you desire to contain your skepticism enough to
investigate what this is all about.

the use of feeding stations to attract Gombe chimpanzees is, in particular, thought by some to have altered normal foraging and feeding patterns as well as social relationships; this argument is the focus of a book published by Margaret Power in 1991.[31] It has been suggested that higher levels of aggression and conflict with other chimpanzee groups in the area were consequences of the feeding, which could have created the "wars" between chimpanzee social groups described by Goodall, aspects of which she did not witness in the years before artificial feeding began at Gombe. Thus, some regard Goodall's observations as distortions of normal chimpanzee behavior.Jane Goodall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was only talking about her observations before manipulating their natural habitat.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

ETA: LOL, just like your use of Mother Theresa as an example of goodness personified, you seem to think we all view Jane Goodall as some kind of flawless person. Do you think I don't point my skepticism at everyone? Do you think any of the people in this thread just follow some party line? There are no sacred cows here, peacegirl. Not even Einstein. Yours and Lessans "You are just parroting dogma" bullshit don't fly here.

If that's how you feel, and you think that somehow you are going to expose Lessans as a fraud, I don't think there's anything more to say to you because you are not interested in the book at all. You just want to be right at all costs which is actually doing a disservice to the readers of this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, feel free to compare Lessans to Goodall when Goodall claims to have discovered an undeniable law of ape nature, that depends heavily on their neural functions, without ever having studied their neural functions.

This is an example of your arrogance LadyShea (knowing a little bit about a lot is not enough. You come off believing that you know a lot about a lot, which is dangerous when you use your knowledge as a standard to dismiss knowledge you know nothing about). I'm done defending myself. If people want to talk to me about his first discovery, which you said you understood but conveniently left out in your post, then we can progress. If not, I'm not wasting my time here. There will only be ridicule, no grasp of this knowledge whatsoever, and this thread will have meant nothing. I will not waste anymore energy if people are not interested in knowing what Lessans discovered and the implications that will benefit our world.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I don't.

And there it is in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen, the three-word confession of the willfull ignoranus:




"No, I don't." Never mind that it has been explained to her in painful detail dozens, if not by now hundreds, of times.

However, I believe she's lying. She has a powerful interest in pretending not to understand: her fantasies (never to be realized, alas!) of a best-selling book and probably an appearance with Oprah, or hobnobbing with Deepak Choprah. Dream on, peacegirl!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

NA, we also brought up the fact that because stars move relative to us and are many lightyears away, a camera should see a radically different picture of the night sky then our eyes, as the camera needs to wait for light to arrive while we should see the stars where they are today.

I never really got a good explanation for this either.

So far she has come up with two contradictory explanations: The camera does take pictures in real time; and it does NOT take pictures in real time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm done defending myself. If people want to talk to me about his first discovery, which you said you understood but conveniently left out in your post, then we can progress. If not, I'm not wasting my time here. There will only be ridicule, no grasp of this knowledge whatsoever, and this thread will have meant nothing. I will not waste anymore energy if people are not interested in knowing what Lessans discovered and the implications that will benefit our world.

Oh, look! She's leaving -- again!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations were based reading a tremendous amount of history and literature. His insights (along with his reasoning ability) allowed him to see universal principles that are not based on demographics and do not apply to only certain groups. He had a very rational basis for coming to his conclusions based on his observations.

His observations are not necessarily applicable universally.

Since you're so well read on the subject, how do you explain that some other researchers, observing other chimp populations, have observed different behavior than Goodall observed? Some observe similar behaviors, some don't. It's almost like not all things are universal.

Some Orca pods use specific hunting techniques that others don't. Same with dolphins, different behaviors are observed in different pods.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are just being stubborn for the sake of argumentation, and it's getting cumbersome for me because we are going in circles, we will never get into the meat of the book, and you will be proclaimed the winner of this thread, which you're not.

You are clinging to the idea that observation of a necessarily limited population is sufficient to extrapolate universally. It's not.

So did I..."or can be used to make predictions for all future individuals of the same species"

And that doesn't work when the subject under investigation is the neural functions of 6 billion currently living individuals. Most people, when facing something like that, simply say "We don't that, yet" or "We can't know that yet because of these limitations..."

If emotions, cognitive abilities, and value systems*, and the associated behaviors, were the product of a set and predictable mathematical formula, we wouldn't be individuals at all, everyone would be exactly the same except for a few anomalies.

*Conscience is a product of a complex, and in many ways unique to each individual, interplay between these brain functions

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't compare chimps to man, as if there's no difference.

Then don't compare Goodall's work to Lessans' as if they are correlative.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just want to be right at all costs which is actually doing a disservice to the readers of this thread.

I don't want to be right "at all costs". I am not cheating, or lying, or making things up, or obfuscating my points, or dodging topics, or refusing to look at evidence, or calling people meanie as a means to win.

I have posted my honest thoughts and opinions, as well as offered relevant support for them. How that is doing a disservice to anyone? They can read, contemplate, and come to their own conclusions.

[naturalist.atheist]

Does the Lessan universe fall apart if there is no "efferent vision" or is Lesson inerrancy required for "belief"?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is an example of your arrogance LadyShea (knowing a little bit about a lot is not enough. You come off believing that you know a lot about a lot, which is dangerous when you use your knowledge as a standard to dismiss knowledge you know nothing about).

And how would you characterize using knowledge you know nothing about to support what you think YOU know?

How am I the arrogant one? You decided to use Goodall's work as comparable to Lessans, not me. However Goodall, as far as I am aware, never claimed to have discovered an undeniable law of ape nature requiring that apes neural functioning be fixed and predictable in all individuals.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm done defending myself.

You are a free agent. Do what you want.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Does the Lessan universe fall apart if there is no "efferent vision" or is Lesson inerrancy required for "belief"?

Apparently it is required, otherwise his form of conditioning doesn't work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how would you characterize using knowledge you know nothing about to support what you think YOU know?

I know a lot LadyShea. More than you do on the topic under discussion, believe it or not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How am I the arrogant one? You decided to use Goodall's work as comparable to Lessans, not me. However Goodall, as far as I am aware, never claimed to have discovered an undeniable law of ape nature requiring that apes neural functioning be fixed and predictable in all individuals.

Please don't play innocent. You can argue until the cows come home (or should I say apes), but it doesn't change a thing. You are trying in the worst way to discredit Lessans because you are so sure that your standard of determining his credibility is airtight. Let me inform you that it's not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm done defending myself.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are a free agent. Do what you want.

I'm not free at all which just shows me how very confused you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is that because you refuse to understand, or because you are unable to comprehend the objection?


1. If efferent vision is true, as Lessans described, instantaneous transfer of information is possible via vision

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).

2. The Theory of Relativity (as does Causality) 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

In your own words, repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't change the facts.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not free at all which just shows me how very confused you are.

You're right, so, do whatever you are compelled to do, which is that which leads to greater satisfaction

Are you done or not done defending yourself?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In your own words, repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't change the facts.

You are simply repeating "does not", I am repeating a series of well supported statements that you have been unable to coherently refute.

Also, there was a series of questions in there you could answer


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).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And there it is in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen, the three-word confession of the willfull ignoranus:




"No, I don't." Never mind that it has been explained to her in painful detail dozens, if not by now hundreds, of times.

However, I believe she's lying. She has a powerful interest in pretending not to understand: her fantasies (never to be realized, alas!) of a best-selling book and probably an appearance with Oprah, or hobnobbing with Deepak Choprah. Dream on, peacegirl!

I have no desire to be in the limelight David. BTW, I've met Oprah when she hosted People Are Talking before moving to Chicago. I would have touched her if I knew how famous she was going to become.