A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

oh and by the way, it is the very definition of moving the goalposts. I said your father was wrong because he said babies cannot see: they must first be conditioned by their other senses (whatever THAT means). I showed you the blink reflex in newborns, and your response was:

Babies can probably see something which is why they blink, but to translate that to sight when they have not yet focused their eyes is stretching your definition of what sight is in order to make your argument fit.

So you say that maybe they can see SOMETHING, but it is not REAL sight. That is moving the goalposts. Babies can see, but not very well.

[peacegirl]

I want to say that today would have been my father's 93rd birthday if he had lived. If you are so inclined, please offer a moment of silence in his memory, or maybe even sing Happy Birthday to him, in recognition of his contribution to our world (not that I'm being serious because no one thinks he has made a contribution.)

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have listened to a lot of evidence and I don't agree that it adds up to what you believe it does. Are you now resorting to calling my father's observations "shit"? If you are, then we have to part ways.

I was using "shit" in a colloquial way, like "All the shit in my house", "all the shit we need for camping" as an emphatic euphemism for "things" or "stuff". I don't think my belongings are shit.

I was using it for effect. You think anything your dad said he observed is the pinnacle of truth. That's a ridiculous stance to take.

Also, you are just using my use of shit to avoid a meaningful response. Weasel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

oh and by the way, it is the very definition of moving the goalposts. I said your father was wrong because he said babies cannot see: they must first be conditioned by their other senses (whatever THAT means). I showed you the blink reflex in newborns, and your response was:

So you say that maybe they can see SOMETHING, but it is not REAL sight. That is moving the goalposts. Babies can see, but not very well.

Movement in black and white is not sight LadyShea. I am not moving any goalposts. The premises have not changed. I'm just getting more specific since people are trying to equate seeing shadows or a light pointed in their eyes, as true sight.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not freaking out unless "freaking out" to you means giving in.

No, you freak out at the mere thought of Lessans being possibly incorrect, and start in with the emphatic but unsupported "you are wrongs" and "I will be vindicates". This is natural for a True Believer because, like religious texts, he asserted his infallibility right in the book. Over and over.

No scientists ever use "undeniable" so it's a stupid word to make a synonym for "scientific". His claims of discovering absolute truths and laws of nature and all that are the claims of an egomaniac, not a scientist.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Movement in black and white is not sight LadyShea. I am not moving any goalposts. The premises have not changed. I'm just getting more specific since people are trying to equate seeing shadows or a light pointed in their eyes, as true sight.

Why is that not sight? And how os color specifically important? Is black and white sight not sight now? The premise has changed extensively - we are now redefining sight into multiple things, somehow.

Also, you seem to be mixing people up again.

[LadyShea]

I am not Vivisectus. He's foreign.

But, I am interested in your repeatedly moving the goalposts. Pretty soon nothing less than 20/20 vision will count as sight in your book.

Back a ways I discussed how I don't have binocular vision, I suppose that means I can't actually see? My dad has terrible color perception even with corrective lenses, does he have "true sight"?

Seriously, sight is defined as anything perceived through the eyes. Any and all visual perceptions are sight. It may be limited, obscured, or different, but it is all true sight.

[Vivisectus]

t'is true, I am extremely foreign. Even here in Ireland, which is pretty damn foreign, do people think I am foreign, which just goes to show how foreign I am.

[LadyShea]

You really are not an American, I hate to be the one to tell you.

[Vivisectus]

I dunno - your president is Irish, and he has a problem convincing people his papers are in order, and that sure sounds Irish to me.

[LadyShea]

Also, what makes you think babies are unable to see in color? Especially objects within the distance of their perfectly fine focus, 8-16 inches from their eyes?

Unfocused merely means blurry or non distinct, just like someone who needs corrective lenses sees without them. It doesn't mean black and white shadows or "not true" sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

oh and by the way, it is the very definition of moving the goalposts. I said your father was wrong because he said babies cannot see: they must first be conditioned by their other senses (whatever THAT means). I showed you the blink reflex in newborns, and your response was:

So you say that maybe they can see SOMETHING, but it is not REAL sight. That is moving the goalposts. Babies can see, but not very well.

It's not moving the goalposts; it's just semantics. I know what my father meant when he said "Sight takes place when... I have not changed my position at all. How can you see if your eyes are not focused? Yes, a baby could see light or dark and respond in a reflexive manner if suddenly light is in his eyes, but that does not mean he can focus his eyes, even at a close distance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, what makes you think babies are unable to see in color? Especially objects within the distance of their perfectly fine focus, 8-16 inches from their eyes?

I never said anything about babies not being able to see in color, once they are able to see clearly. I said black and white as if the objects were black or white, but if they were blue and orange, the baby could probably see those colors. This is, once again, getting way off topic.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unfocused merely means blurry or non distinct, just like someone who needs corrective lenses sees without them. It doesn't mean black and white shadows or "not true" sight.

Unfocused means blurry, but a person who needs glasses is not cross-eyed and the source of that blurriness is completely different than a babies. Lenses or glasses would not help a baby because his eyes aren't unfocused due to a refractive error. What is your point?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Babies can probably see something which is why they blink, but to translate that to sight when they have not yet focused their eyes is stretching your definition of what sight is in order to make your argument fit. They cannot focus yet, that has already been established. Even TLR admits this although he believes the ciliary muscle has just not been fully developed. In either case, we can see that newborns are cross-eyed which mean their eyes are not focused.

No. It. Doesn't.

You're either lying or demonstrating (yet again) a complete inability to comprehend that which you don't want to.

Test this for yourself: If you want to focus both eyes on something that's only a few inches in front of your eyes, you must go cross-eyed in order to do so.

There's nothing magical about it; it's simply due to the fact that since light travels in straight lines, if you're to focus both eyes on something that's right in front of your nose, you must rotate both eyes medially.


Being cross-eyed has nothing to do with the ciliary muscles, by the way. All you're doing is further demonstrating your ignorance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have never asked for proof. Not even once. I don't use that word because I don't find it meaningful.

In science, knowledge is built on evidence and observation from multiple sources over time. The body of evidence is there, in mountains of literature. There is no single piece of "proof" I can link you to, and you have refused to research any of these issues for yourself. You are ignorant because you choose to be.

I have read some of the online links that you provided. They are very unreliable. I really don't see where there is a preponderance of evidence that would rule out efferent vision completely.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now you are claiming that "they" (whoever "they" are) proved that the eyes are not efferent. Where are these major studies?

The major studies are the ones I read online and have the potential for error.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Start with The Lone Rangers essay. Read it fully, ask questions about specific processes and/or use the terms and processes he describes to search PubMed for abstracts, and find a University library that can get you whatever full articles you need. You will find that science and medicine both have been interested in vision for as long as humans have been trying to figure stuff out and there are mountains of things to go through. Anatomy, ophthalmology, neuroscience are all fields you will need to look in.

Don't you see that I will be getting the same evidence that you and TLR have linked me to? I already know the basics of what the afferent model is. The only disagreement is that impulses are interpreted by the brain as sight. Every single piece of literature will confirm this, so I will just be reading the same thing from different sources.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you do the work, and are still not convinced, then fine. Many times people reach different conclusions after viewing the exact same results and evidence. Just saying "nuh uh" without looking at anything is the biggest cop out I have ever seen. How you can say you aren't just like a fundie is beyond me.

I'm not a fundie at all. I don't believe the tests thus far are giving us a true picture. If they were, I would be the first one to concede.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you have given me is inconclusive, unreliable tests that mean zilch as far as proving Lessans wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How would you know how to assess the reliability of a scientific experiment when the height of knowledge in your opinion is shit your dad said he observed?

I have listened to a lot of evidence and I don't agree that it adds up to what you believe it does. Are you now resorting to calling my father's observations "shit"? If you are, then we have to part ways.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was using "shit" in a colloquial way, like "All the shit in my house", "all the shit we need for camping" as an emphatic euphemism for "things" or "stuff". I don't think my belongings are shit.

I read it over and now I can see that you were using that word for emphasis. I guess I'm overly sensitive after months of being attacked.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was using it for effect. You think anything your dad said he observed is the pinnacle of truth. That's a ridiculous stance to take.

Also, you are just using my use of shit to avoid a meaningful response. Weasel.

Since day one I have been trying to give meaningful responses. I'm not using your use of the word shit to avoid answering in a meaningful way unless I feel demeaned. I can see that you didn't mean it that way. What I'm not happy about is now we're right back to this topic. I thought we had moved on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No. It. Doesn't.

You're either lying or demonstrating (yet again) a complete inability to comprehend that which you don't want to.

Test this for yourself: If you want to focus both eyes on something that's only a few inches in front of your eyes, you must go cross-eyed in order to do so.

There's nothing magical about it; it's simply due to the fact that since light travels in straight lines, if you're to focus both eyes on something that's right in front of your nose, you must rotate both eyes medially.


Being cross-eyed has nothing to do with the ciliary muscles, by the way. All you're doing is further demonstrating your ignorance.

Oh my god, so now you think that babies are actually seeing objects close up by bringing their eyes together and that they aren't actually cross-eyed? We're talking about newborns TLR, come on.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not moving the goalposts; it's just semantics. I know what my father meant when he said "Sight takes place when... I have not changed my position at all. How can you see if your eyes are not focused? Yes, a baby could see light or dark and respond in a reflexive manner if suddenly light is in his eyes, but that does not mean he can focus his eyes, even at a close distance.

Focus has already been explained to you, but you seem determined not to understand it. Something can be unfocused, but nevertheless visible. You can deliberately make your sight a bit blurry bu slightly unfocusing your eyes. Try it with your computer screen. It is still visible: It just wont be a sharp image. Also, newborn sight is focused, it is just focused right for something that is about 10 inches in front of their face. Newborns can see a human face at that range - we know this because they mimic expressions.

And it most certainly IS moving the goalposts. The book says newborns cannot see at all, and that that is because of the way sight works. However, both newborn mimicry and blink reflex shows that this is not true. You then move the goalposts by saying that this is not real vision. You then contradict yourself by calling this seeing, but apparently this is a different kind of seeing and doesn't really count as seeing. The same applies for what happens if we stimulate the optic nerve - somehow these are poo-pooed away as "not being real sight"

Hence the goalposts have been moved from "Newborns cannot see, and sight is not afferent" to "Ah but those things that newborns see and that we can create using a completely afferent method are not REAL sight."

It is a very dishonest way of reasoning. It means there is no real discussion going on because the person moving the goalposts would rather attempt to try to falsely represent reality rather than re-think their position.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, so now you think that babies are actually seeing objects close up by bringing their eyes together and that their not cross-eyed? We're talking about newborns TLR, come on.

Good God. You can't be that stupid. It's got to be intentional on your part.

1.) Babies are cross-eyed.
2.) In order to focus both eyes on a nearby object, you must be cross-eyed. (Try it for yourself.)
3.) Therefore, the fact that babies are cross-eyed means that they can bring something into focus with both eyes only if it's just a few inches in front of their faces.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hi Spacemonkey, welcome. You always seem to find me. I really do value your input as I remember you being very fair in how you framed your questions. I hope you stick around even if it's to try to prove Lessans wrong. If he isn't wrong, your refutation will help to highlight why he isn't. And if he is wrong, kudos to you for holding your ground.

Hi Janis. I hope you're well. I'm not here to discuss anything with you, as you are simply incapable of objective rational thought when it comes to Lessans. And if anyone still thinks you can be reached by reason or argument then they are as deluded as you are. You've spent literally years doing this exact same thing, facing and failing to refute or even understand the exact same objections and evidence, on multiple forums without ever making the slightest progress either in getting Lessans' work respected or in improving your own presentation of his material or your understanding of what is wrong wth it.

[LadyShea]

I don't think she understands that focus is related to distance when it comes to fixed shape lenses. I tried to explain it in simple terms, even gave her an experiment she can do at home.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, you freak out at the mere thought of Lessans being possibly incorrect, and start in with the emphatic but unsupported "you are wrongs" and "I will be vindicates". This is natural for a True Believer because, like religious texts, he asserted his infallibility right in the book. Over and over.

I get worried because the rejection of this knowledge will only delay the life we all want. I don't want generation after generation to be born into a world of hatred, war, and crime. I don't know about you.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No scientists ever use "undeniable" so it's a stupid word to make a synonym for "scientific". His claims of discovering absolute truths and laws of nature and all that are the claims of an egomaniac, not a scientist.

Your attitude will absolutely prevent you from understanding the book. I can see how determined you are to prove him wrong just like a prosecutor maintains his position to save face when the evidence turns against him. I'm not saying the evidence has turned against you at this point, but you are obviously convinced that it won't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hi Janis. I hope you're well. I'm not here to discuss anything with you, as you are simply incapable of objective rational thought when it comes to Lessans. And if anyone still thinks you can be reached by reason or argument then they are as deluded as you are. You've spent literally years doing this exact same thing, facing and failing to refute or even understand the exact same objections and evidence, on multiple forums without ever making the slightest progress either in getting Lessans' work respected or in improving your own presentation of his material or your understanding of what is wrong wth it.

I don't remember exactly what your refutations were in regard to his definition of determinism. I do remember your example of a red light turning into a blue light. I realized my response wasn't correct because in that example I would see the blue light. Everything that was discussed on the other forum has been discussed here, so your saying I'm deluded is no surprise. You all come from the same mold. I started this online quest since 2003 but it will be coming to an end. This is not the right venue. It does not make Lessans automatically wrong no matter how it appears. Each time I tried a different forum I was deluded into thinking that somehow a different audience would be more willing to keep an open mind, but that's as far as my delusion goes. Do you know that we've only gotten to page 53 in the book? The only thing people want to discuss is his chapter on the eyes. So since you're not interested in anything I have to say, you can now move on.

[Angakuk]

What can a newborn see?

It used to be we thought that newborns could see very little during the first few months of life. However, better and more sophisticated testing techniques have proven these assumptions wrong. In fact, newborns are able to see and distinguish objects within the first few weeks. Their eyes are not great at focusing, so optimum distance for seeing an object is between eight to 15 inches. This is fortunate since this corresponds to the distance between the mother and child's face while breastfeeding. More accurately, this ideal distance most likely evolved because of breastfeeding.

It turns out distinction between colors is probably not very good until at least three months of age. This is the reason newborns tend to have the most attraction to contrasts of dark and light rather than brightly colored objects. It is this fascination of contrasts that have made the black-and-white newborn mobiles and toys so popular. Another interesting aspect of a newborn's vision is that it allows for preference of human faces. In fact, there is a portion of the brain that seems to be dedicated to allowing for this facial recognition. Newborn babies are naturally attracted even to rough sketches of human faces. This specific recognition mechanism helps facilitate bonding between the mother and child, particularly during breastfeeding.

A drawback to a newborn's vision is that the baby's eye muscles are both mildly weak and definitely uncoordinated. So, even though the vision may advanced enough to recognize shapes and contrasts, the muscles of the eye make it difficult to both focus and follow these objects. Most parents are familiar with the cross-eyed look newborn babies can give. However, this poor coordination of the eyes to move as one unit becomes less of an issue by three months of age.

Peacegirl,
You keep saying that newborns are cross-eyed, as if that were a constant condition. Sometimes their eyes are crossed, sometimes they are a bit wall-eyed, sometimes one or another eye wanders and sometimes both eyes point straight ahead.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get worried because the rejection of this knowledge will only delay the life we all want. I don't want generation after generation to be born into a world of hatred, war, and crime. I don't know about you.

If the true goal was to get the knowledge you think the book contains out into the world to prevent war and crime, you would simply name yourself co-author and rewrite the whole book; maintaining the integrity of the discoveries so that they stand or fall on their own merits, but removing all the arrogance, claims of undeniability, pre-emptive blaming of the reader, bad science, distracting fake dialog, and butthurt. Those are the things that cause people to question you, demand evidence, and eventually get hostile out of sheer frustration.

If you think someday people will be interested in his anecdotes and "what he went through" and thought processes and all that, write a companion biography and include all the quotes you want.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your attitude will absolutely prevent you from understanding the book. I can see how determined you are to prove him wrong just like a prosecutor maintains his position to save face when the evidence turns against him. I'm not saying the evidence has turned against you at this point, but you are obviously convinced that it won't.

I am your intended audience and you and Lessans lost me on page one with the unwarranted arrogance and assertions of infallibility

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, all conditions are not met if the brain is seeing through the eyes a blurred image. It takes light to be refracted onto the retina at that exact point where the lens can work correctly.

But the light is present on the retina. What is missing? Why doesn't it work? Why does the light from each point on the object have to hit a corresponding point on the retina?