A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

That's fine, and it might be that the ciliary muscle was not used in utero, but this doesn't prove (it is speculation) that this is the cause of the newborns inability to focus. Moreover, the idea that a newborn can see close up (6-18 inches) is not confirmed.

Weyhey! And immediately we have a particularly fine example of unilaterally deciding something is unconfirmed.

Funny - not only do we know they CAN see, but we also know they seem to like seeing a human face best.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Weyhey! And immediately we have a particularly fine example of unilaterally deciding something is unconfirmed.

Funny - not only do we know they CAN see, but we also know they seem to like seeing a human face best.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wouldn't though. The thread is prompting the rabbit holing. I did the same thing back in the day arguing with apologists. I never would have been interested in researching evolution and Biblical history and stuff if I wasn't arguing with someone about it.

That's just me. Arguments with my husband or friends are the same way. Hell even a movie can spark it.

The fact that you keep saying you've never asked for proof is a cop out. You can weasel your way out of anything LadyShea, and to tell you the truth, I'm tired of it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

More moving the goalposts I see - so now we are to assume there are 2 types of sight? One for reflexes, which works by detecting light (hey, that sounds like real sight!) and one for everything else?

By the way, is that the same kind of sight that creates images in the brain when we stimulate the optic nerve?

How fascinating - yet again an entire scientific discipline will have to be re-written, just so you don't have to admit that your dad made even the smallest mistake.

There is no rewriting of anything Vivisecus. I cannot tolerate after all this time the disregard for ANYTHING that Lessans has to say. This is going to end the discussion. I am sick and tired of the confrontation, as if you know something conclusive. I'll let you in on something: YOU DON'T.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

.

But that is exactly the part that has not been proven, because what he uses to prove it is fallacious. He defines "That which leads to the greatest satisfaction" as "That which people end up choosing", and so he equates that what DOES happen with that what HAS to happen. However, we have no reason to believe that that which did happen happened because it HAD to happen.

As we have not shown that this is so, we have not proven that a person is compelled to choose that which leads to the greatest satisfaction. We have merely created some confusing and misleading definitions.

No, you are moving the goalposts again. Babies can see, right from the get-go. They may not be able to change their focus, but they certainly do see, and do not require any kind of conditioning or stimulation of the other senses for this at all. Therefor his observation, which quite clearly states that this is not so, was wrong.

It is pretty conclusive to anyone who does not automatically assume Lessans to be infallible. The newborn reflex is well documented. It is triggered by sight - the babies cant hear or smell or feel the object coming close to their eyes. They see it, simple as that.

When you're ready to go over his keen observations, I will post them again. If you don't see the validity of those observations, that's too bad. It does not mean Lessans is wrong. The more likely possibility is that you dont' have the capacity to see that Lessans wasn't wrong. Look, I am not into arguing, and if this is going to continue, let this thread die already. I will not spend my time in defense without one person truly interested other than making Lessans some kind of scapegoat. It's getting very old.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say that. You messed up the quote tag again. That was Vivisectus.

Sorry for getting the quote tags mixed up, but your thinking is exactly the same as Vivisectus, so as far as making a difference who I quoted, it matters nada.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know what you're talking about.

Don't ever change PG

Oh, and by the way:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~alicel/b...r%20vision.pdf

Babies can even see color. But they seem to have difficulty with yellow.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I worked with a lady who was very cross eyed, to the point of being legally blind, but could read receipts and printouts by bringing them all the way to her nose. She was the bookkeeper.

Very cool. She was probably able to compensate for this problem. A baby cannot do this. They don't have the experience to compensate. You, once again, are trying to confront me so you can be right. This is not going to work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He's a radiologist IIRC. She chose not to bother her kids with the book, and says she didn't even talk about the concept of no free will with them, because they wouldn't have understood. And now they're busy.

Makes you wonder why she wouldn't start the world peace process at home, huh?

LadyShea, don't put words in my mouth. They would have understood but this knowledge is once removed. They have other interests and the most important part of this book is not to be selfish by demanding people do what you want them to do for your benefit, not theirs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Most living things react to light in some way or other.

Plants grow towards the light, some plants turn their leaves through the day so that they face the sun to collect as much sunlight as possible.

Many 'simple' animals know whether it's light or dark - they have simple light detector cells somewhere on their bodies, even though they are nothing like what we would call 'eyes'.

Then there are animals that have their light receptor cells at the bottom of pits on their bodies - so they are able to detect which direction the light is coming from. And then there is a whole range of different animals, some with poor vision and some that have (in some respect) vision that is better than that of humans. Cats and dogs can see better at night than us; many hawks have very sharp distance vision; some birds and insects can see in the ultra-violet.

Does Lessans have anything to say about vision in animals other than humans?

Peacegirl, do you think all animals see efferently, or is it just some animals, or perhaps only human beings?

We have to be smart here Ceptimus. If sight is efferent, it's universally efferent. Just because animals can detect light has no bearing on what the brain is doing in more evolved creatures.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Happy Birthday Seymour. I am sure you miss your dad, peacegirl

Thanks LadyShea. I really do miss him but he is in my heart (not literally). I feel he is with me in memory, and this helps me to be strong in his knowledge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then explain the comments below

I used that as an example. I did not mean that there couldn't be colors if the cones and rods are developed. Again, you're bringing things into the conversation to distract in my opinion. This has nothing to do with the subject of efferent vision.

[Vivisectus]

There is no rewriting of anything Vivisecus. I cannot tolerate after all this time the disregard for ANYTHING that Lessans has to say. This is going to end the discussion. I am sick and tired of the confrontation, as if you know something conclusive. I'll let you in on something: YOU DON'T.

I know you don't like it, but the facts remain the facts. The book contains some rather blatant errors. There are fallacies in it, and statements about physics and biology that are just plain wrong. That has been pretty conclusively proven.

It is a religion with 1 follower. Either let go of the fairytale, or just admit that it is irrational but that you believe in it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Her son is a medical student? I wonder if they ever talk about "efferent vision". He probably knows that there is just no point.

He is not a medical student. He is a doctor in his fellowship. He is the only in house doctor at the largest hospital in Atlanta for trauma.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

On the subject of crossed eyes. When I was a child we had a cross-eyed tomcat. His name was Samson (it was Delilah originally, but when we learned she was a he we changed it to Samson). Sam was awesome at catching gophers, but it took him awhile to get the hang of it. When he first started trying to catch gophers he would sit for hours by the hole, when the gopher finally made an appearance he would pounce and miss. He did this repeatedly until he finally figured out how to compensate for the peculiarities of his vision caused by his crossed eyes. Once he got the hang of it he hardly ever missed a gopher. He was cross-eyed, but he was hardly blind.

Compensation is a large part of making up for something that isn't working correctly. So what Angakuk? What does this prove? You are grasping at anything that you think will be the final nail in the coffin.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To find a flaw in the current scientific ideas of light and sight, you have to understand it pretty thoroughly.

Lessans extraordinary claim is unsupported by equally extraordinary evidence, and he failed to leave you a description of the mechanism, so you're stuck trying to defend it from a place of ignorance.

Really you can't hurt him. The idea is very refutable from many angles and you need to comprehend those refutations.

Absolutely incorrect. He did not have to be a physicist or neuro-physiologist to understand this psychological law of man's nature of which his extension is based. Your conditions as to what he had to know to know what he was talking about are flawed, which is the source of the problem.

[Vivisectus]

When you're ready to go over his keen observations, I will post them again. If you don't see the validity of those observations, that's too bad. It does not mean Lessans is wrong. The more likely possibility is that you dont' have the capacity to see that Lessans wasn't wrong. Look, I am not into arguing, and if this is going to continue, let this thread die already. I will not spend my time in defense without one person truly interested other than making Lessans some kind of scapegoat. It's getting very old.

But we just demonstrated his observations were wrong and that newborns CAN see, and that what they see is in focus at short range!

This makes you uncomfortable, so you are creating a smokescreen of angry accusations, claiming persecution and malice.

You do this every time the evidence becomes too hard to ignore even for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He's a radiologist IIRC. She chose not to bother her kids with the book, and says she didn't even talk about the concept of no free will with them, because they wouldn't have understood. And now they're busy.

Makes you wonder why she wouldn't start the world peace process at home, huh?

No no, you are not going to get away with this. This knowledge has nothing to do with the free will environment we are living in. Yes, it can help to understand man's nature, but it cannot change a small segment of society without changing the whole. Once again, you are grasping at straws in an effort to prove him wrong, which you cannot do, because he isn't wrong.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you are grasping at straws in an effort to prove him wrong, which you cannot do, because he isn't wrong.

No, of course not, dumbo isn't wrong; the idiot who said babies can't see, dogs can't recognize their masters, and if God turned on the sun at noon people on the earth would see it immediately but not see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes.



Lady, get help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Don't ever change PG

Oh, and by the way:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~alicel/b...r%20vision.pdf

Babies can even see color. But they seem to have difficulty with yellow.

I don't know anything about infants having difficult with the color yellow. What does this have to do with this discussion? Are you trying to distract people?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we just demonstrated his observations were wrong and that newborns CAN see, and that what they see is in focus at short range!

This makes you uncomfortable, so you are creating a smokescreen of angry accusations, claiming persecution and malice.

You do this every time the evidence becomes too hard to ignore even for you.

There is too much investment in science being right (even though people say that evidence is constantly changing) to have a fair discussion. Even TLR claims that the ciliary muscle is a voluntary muscle, which is clearly not true according to more than one source.

Cranial nerves III, IV, VI. Ocular Motility
Oculomotor function can be divided into two categories: (1) extraocular muscle function and (2) intrinsic ocular muscles (controlling the lens and pupil). The extraocular muscles include: the medial, inferior, and superior recti, the inferior oblique, and levator palpebrae muscles, all innervated by the oculomotor nerve (III); the superior oblique muscle, innervated by the trochlear nerve (IV); and the lateral rectus muscle, innervated by the abducens nerve (VI). The intrinsic eye muscles are innervated by the autonomic systems and include the iris sphincter and the ciliary muscle (innervated by the parasympathetic component of cranial nerve III), and the radial pupillodilator muscles (innervated by the ascending cervical sympathetic system with its long course from spinal segments T1 through T3).

Chapter 4: Eye movements

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know anything about infants having difficult with the color yellow. What does this have to do with this discussion? Are you trying to distract people?

Merely sharing a controlled, proper test into newborn sight. You know. Where you publish what you measured, and how. Which shows that yup, they can see alright. They can even see color.

unlike what it says in the book.

Now in normal people we would call that "being wrong" but apparently merely expressing views that conflict with reality cannot be described as that when it comes to Lessans, on account of infallibility.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is too much investment in science to have a fair discussion. Even TLR claims that the ciliary muscle was a voluntary muscle in order to defend his case. That is clearly not true according to a number of sources.

Cranial nerves III, IV, VI. Ocular Motility
Oculomotor function can be divided into two categories: (1) extraocular muscle function and (2) intrinsic ocular muscles (controlling the lens and pupil). The extraocular muscles include: the medial, inferior, and superior recti, the inferior oblique, and levator palpebrae muscles, all innervated by the oculomotor nerve (III); the superior oblique muscle, innervated by the trochlear nerve (IV); and the lateral rectus muscle, innervated by the abducens nerve (VI). The intrinsic eye muscles are innervated by the autonomic systems and include the iris sphincter and the ciliary muscle (innervated by the parasympathetic component of cranial nerve III), and the radial pupillodilator muscles (innervated by the ascending cervical sympathetic system with its long course from spinal segments T1 through T3).

Chapter 4: Eye movements

Ah, more claims of persecution and copypasta. Newborns can still see though.

[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.

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.

How you equate Lessans explaining up front what he means by the words "scientific, undeniable, and mathematical with egomania is beyond me.

[LadyShea]

His claims of discovering absolute truths and laws of nature and all that are the claims of an egomaniac

Scientists never claim absolute proof, nor claim their findings are undeniable.