A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

LS, you must realize that by calling a sunset beautiful you are doing hurt to all the other sunsets that you do not consider to be as beautiful as that sunset.

Why do you hate all those other sunsets?

I know you are mocking me, but actually calling a sunset beautiful doesn't hurt anyone unless your opinion as to what you call beautiful causes someone else who thinks another sunset is more beautiful, to be reactive. Then an argument starts because the word 'beautiful' creates a standard that challenges someone else's opinion. Whereas saying something appeals to me shows personal taste for something and does not cause this kind of reaction. How can someone react defensively to someone's personal taste? There is nothing wrong with using the word beautiful under the conditions you just described, as long as it doesn't start an argument, but to use the word beautiful where people are concerned implies indirectly that there are ugly people, and this is a serious hurt to those who conclude that they must be ugly because they never hear the word beautiful or pretty when it comes to them.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea. The present model of sight is based on what appears to be solid evidence. Lessans' model of sight is based on what appears to be solid evidence.

You're going to have to give me the definition of "solid evidence" you are using.

Of course, scientists are going to be up in arms (as they are in here) that someone would dare challenge this accepted fact.

Accepted fact based on data from multiple experiments, examinations and hard data.

How did Lessan's know the eyes contain rods and cones? Did he read it somewhere and accept THAT fact? Did he dissect an eye and look at its structures under a microscope?

Why do you think he said, "I am very aware if I'm not careful the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth."

The same claim made by every conspiracy theorist, quack medicine practitioner, and pseudoscience pusher. When they can't demonstrate their ideas with hard evidence, they blame the establishment for not recongizing their genius because it's such a threat.

Basically that sentence, right there, screams "Crackpot"

He definitely wanted to put himself on the same level as people like Mendel, however Mendel was able to demonstrate his ideas with experimentation. He had a whole experimental garden and grew plants and they supported his hypothesis. Where are Lessan's experiments?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No it isn't because if it was, then the brain could not do what he is describing; project words (whether true or false) onto a screen of undeniable substance.

By "projecting words onto a screen of undeniable substance" do you mean labeling things? Categorizing them? Associating them with emotions? Attaching meaning?

This particular use of words you cannot adhere to, because it needs to be defined using some other words. It may make perfect sense to you, but it does not to the reader. And I am a good reader with a big vocabulary.

And, when you explain that, then explain if blind people also do it.

Also. he defined sense as stimuli from the outside world coming in contact with nerves. You will need to explain how sight does NOT meet this definition because I think it does

Stimuli (light photons) from the outside world come in contact with the optic nerve

So, tell me how the above sentence is incorrect.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right. But he makes a valid claim that the eyes work differently. That's what this investigation is all about.

He makes an unsupported assertion that the eyes work differently. He gives nothing on which to base an investigation and no direction to even look in.

Should scientist look at the structure of the eye? They have. Should they look at the optic nerve? Done. Should they follow the neural pathways? Done.

What has science missed that they need to look at?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was not his experimentation with light that confirmed his observations; it was his observations as to how the brain functions in relation to the eyes.

Observations of what? Observation of who? Test subjects?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To differentiate colors, he would have to know the word blue and be able to see that this color is different from pink or any other color.

This bit is problematic as it is my understanding that dogs are color blind and even knowing the word would not allow them to differentiate between colors that are the same on the grey scale. There must be some other means to do this, or dogs will not be able to tell the difference. It is possible that different pigments that produce different colors give off distinct smells that dogs can detect but humans cannot.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think I'll stick to reading to my grandchildren. My dogs won't mind a bit.

Do your dogs sit with your grandchildren while you read to them?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no evangelizing here, although he is bringing good news. In other words, just because he is bringing good news does not turn him into an evangelist. That would mean that anybody who discovers anything and tries to share it, would fit this definition. That would make all discoverers evangelists. Definition from Wiki:

The word "evangelism" comes from the Greek word "euangelizomai," which literally means "to bring Good News."

Evangelize only means "preaching the Gospel to in an effort to convert". Wildy is a Christian.

Apologetics is a type of evangelism that tries to prove a religious text is factual using logical arguments and alternate interpretations of evidence. Creationist apologists might try to argue that the Grand Canyon was formed during Noah's flood, for an example.

Originally Posted by peacegilr

Could you explain this in another way?

What is unclear? You have no trouble understanding "Words projected through the eyes onto a screen of substance" but can't understand the difference between asserting something as fact and presenting it as a belief?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea. The present model of sight is based on what appears to be solid evidence. Lessans' model of sight is based on what appears to be solid evidence.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're going to have to give me the definition of "solid evidence" you are using.

Solid evidence is when there is nothing that can contradict it. In this case, Lessans observed a phenomena that cannot, as far as I can tell, be disputed. If you can tell me that his observations as to how we learn words is wrong, then you have a case against him.

Of course, scientists are going to be up in arms (as they are in here) that someone would dare challenge this accepted fact.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Accepted fact based on data from multiple experiments, examinations and hard data.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did Lessan's know the eyes contain rods and cones? Did he read it somewhere and accept THAT fact? Did he dissect an eye and look at its structures under a microscope?

You are once again using a way to evaluate his knowledge that doesn't prove anything. He did not come to his findings in this manner. He observed the workings of the brain and how it relates to WORDS. This showed him the truth INDIRECTLY.

He didn't need to know the workings of the eyes to know, definitively, how the brain learns. That's like saying unless I know the theory of relativity, I can't know that one plus one equals two. You seem to be whitewashing his observations, but I also know you are doing it with good intent.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why do you think he said, "I am very aware if I'm not careful the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth."

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The same claim made by every conspiracy theorist, quack medicine practitioner, and pseudoscience pusher. When they can't demonstrate their ideas with hard evidence, they blame the establishment for not recongizing their genius because it's such a threat.

There is hard evidence. Take some responsibility people. The anger is seen in this small group. Can you imagine what would happen if he presented his findings to the leaders in the field?

I get that, but that was not what he was doing. He was actually being treated prejudicially because of his refusal to accept that the eyes are not a sense organ once he realized how the brain worked.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Basically that sentence, right there, screams "Crackpot"

He definitely wanted to put himself on the same level as people like Mendel, however Mendel was able to demonstrate his ideas with experimentation. He had a whole experimental garden and grew plants and they supported his hypothesis. Where are Lessan's experiments?

He was not trying to put himself on a level of anyone. His knowledge spoke for itself. If you don't see the science behind his observations, you need to reexamine what you so casually said is nonsense. What you say LadyShea (and I am saying this with the utmost respect) does not make him wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said many times that empiricism is great but that is not the only way to come to something that is true scientifically.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No it isn't because if it was, then the brain could not do what he is describing; project words (whether true or false) onto a screen of undeniable substance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By "projecting words onto a screen of undeniable substance" do you mean labeling things? Categorizing them? Associating them with emotions? Attaching meaning?

No, that's not what I mean. So I hope you reread this chapter as I asked you to do, that is, if you really want to learn something new instead of defend your arguments.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This particular use of words you cannot adhere to, because it needs to be defined using some other words. It may make perfect sense to you, but it does not to the reader. And I am a good reader with a big vocabulary.

I have no doubt that you are good reader; probably better than me.

The rest of your questions deal with empirical data, and I cannot give you that. I can only give you his astute observations. If you want to call it quits, do so. Your rejection doesn't make him wrong at all. It will only serve to delay the truth of man's nature.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Solid evidence is when there is nothing that can contradict it. In this case, Lessans observed a phenomena that cannot, as far as I can tell, be disputed.

What, pray, did he observe, how did he observe it, and how is it indisputable? Remember, it has already been proven to you, with Jupiter moons example, that his theory of instantaneous sight is wrong. So it looks disputable after all!

There is hard evidence.

What is it?

Take some responsibility people. The anger is seen in this small group. Can you imagine what would happen if he presented his findings to the leaders in the field?

Yes, the leaders in the field would fall out of their chairs laughing. Let me demonstrate:





The reason people are angry, is for the same reason that people get angry when someone argues like this.

Crackpot: "The world is flat."

Response: "No it is not." (The the responders all patiently give a long list of evidence that the world is not flat)

Crackpot's response: "The world is flat."

The fact is, Lessans is a crackpot. Nay, worse: he is a shatterpot. "Crackpot" doesn't do this guy justice.

Get over yourself. The eye is a fucking sense organ. Everyone knows this except you and Lessans. And the finite speed of light, coupled with the fact that the eye senses reflected light, proves that Lessan's claims about instantaneous seeing are false.

If you want to spend your life peddling this tripe because your dad wrote it, that's really sad. You will never get anything but laughter in response, and the occasional flash of anger at your total incapacity to learn. That is what makes people mad, when people like the Lone Ranger try to educate you and you just blow it off. The Lone Ranger is a biologist, for fuck's sake. Do you think he doesn't know how eyes work? He even knows how they evolved.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The rest of your questions deal with empirical data, and I cannot give you that. I can only give you his astute observations.

You can't give the empirical data. But you can give his astute observations.

Empirical means "observed," for fuck's sake!

[LadyShea]

"projecting words onto a screen of undeniable substance"

I have read the chapter. Lessans uses this phrase, and only this phrase. The explanations or analogies do not make sense to me. I need a different explanation or analogy. Can you provide one?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This bit is problematic as it is my understanding that dogs are color blind and even knowing the word would not allow them to differentiate between colors that are the same on the grey scale. There must be some other means to do this, or dogs will not be able to tell the difference. It is possible that different pigments that produce different colors give off distinct smells that dogs can detect but humans cannot.

All of these variables would have to be isolated (if this turned out to be an important consideration) for the test to be accurate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Do your dogs sit with your grandchildren while you read to them?

No, they're usually asleep, and if they happen to be awake, they look bored to death. I think they'd much rather be fetching balls or going for a walk.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's like saying unless I know the theory of relativity, I can't know that one plus one equals two.

No, this is more like someone claiming to have a NEW and INDISPUTABLE Theory of Relativity, which we will only understand if we accept his claim that 1+1 actually equals 5, which is true because he observed it. Oh, and those who say that this observation is in error or otherwise balk at his claims are obviously just part of the Entrenched Scientific Elite and cannot accept his Revolutionary and Amazing ideas.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Solid evidence is when there is nothing that can contradict it. In this case, Lessans observed a phenomena that cannot, as far as I can tell, be disputed.

If this experiment is factual, then Lessans would be wrong. You can't have both, just as we can't have free will and determinism at the same time. If there is an alternative explanation as to why there was a delay in seeing the eclipse, then Lessans could still be right.

Originally Posted by davidm

What, pray, did he observe, how did he observe it, and how is it indisputable? Remember, it has already been proven to you, with Jupiter moons example, that his theory of instantaneous sight is wrong. So it looks disputable after all!

I don't have a clue whether the Jupiter moons example was indisputable. As I said just now, if there is no other possible explanation, then Lessans would be wrong.

There is hard evidence.

Originally Posted by davidm

What is it?

You tell me, and I'll tell you if you're correct.

Take some responsibility people. The anger is seen in this small group. Can you imagine what would happen if he presented his findings to the leaders in the field?

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, the leaders in the field would fall out of their chairs laughing. Let me demonstrate:





The reason people are angry, is for the same reason that people get angry when someone argues like this.

Crackpot: "The world is flat."

Response: "No it is not." (The the responders all patiently give a long list of evidence that the world is not flat)

Crackpot's response: "The world is flat."

The fact is, Lessans is a crackpot. Nay, worse: he is a shatterpot. "Crackpot" doesn't do this guy justice.

Get over yourself. The eye is a fucking sense organ. Everyone knows this except you and Lessans. And the finite speed of light, coupled with the fact that the eye senses reflected light, proves that Lessan's claims about instantaneous seeing are false.

If you want to spend your life peddling this tripe because your dad wrote it, that's really sad. You will never get anything but laughter in response, and the occasional flash of anger at your total incapacity to learn. That is what makes people mad, when people like the Lone Ranger try to educate you and you just blow it off. The Lone Ranger is a biologist, for fuck's sake. Do you think he doesn't know how eyes work? He even knows how they evolved.

I'm not questioning The Lone Ranger's knowledge. His knowledge is based on man's present understanding and he does a very good job. I even told him so. But how can you tell me to agree with something I don't? I'm truly sorry if I'm taking you out of your comfort zone. That was never my intention.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Kael;932981]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's like saying unless I know the theory of relativity, I can't know that one plus one equals two.

Originally Posted by Kael

No, this is more like someone claiming to have a NEW and INDISPUTABLE Theory of Relativity, which we will only understand if we accept his claim that 1+1 actually equals 5, which is true because he observed it. Oh, and those who say that this observation is in error or otherwise balk at his claims are obviously just part of the Entrenched Scientific Elite and cannot accept his Revolutionary and Amazing ideas.

Kael, yes, there are people who think they have something amazing, and don't after careful examination. But this man was a mathematician in his own right, and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his findings just because it doesn't seem possible. Why do you think he wrote this in the introduction?

Now let me make something very clear. To teach that 2+2=4
doesn’t depend for its truth on who is doing the teaching because
the one being taught can perceive this undeniable relation, but
when the relation revealing any truth is not obvious or difficult to
grasp, or fallaciously logical, or logically inaccurate, then its
acceptance depends more on who is doing the teaching and the
long tenure of its existence rather than on what is being taught.
For example, if students, who cannot perceive undeniable
relations, are taught by their professor that 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 9
because he also cannot perceive this is false, they will be
compelled to reject your explanation of it being 8 because they
compare the rank of the teacher and the long tenure of what is
taught with your upstart disagreement.

Who are you to disagree
with these distinguished professors? Everywhere you look people
are using fallacious standards to judge the truth. To further
illustrate this I recently gave a math problem to a student of
mathematics. I asked this person if it was possible to arrange 105
alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups
of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35
groups would never be twice with any other letter. Since he
assumed that I did not know the answer, he worked on the problem
to find out if he thought it could be solved. After two weeks and
feeling inadequate to the task, he responded, “My own personal
opinion is that it cannot be done, however, I’m not an expert but
my professor is. I’ll give it to him.” “By the way,” he inquired
(using the same fallacious standard as the Harvard graduate), “did
you ever study higher mathematics in one of the universities, and
if you didn’t, how far did you go in school?” Once again I replied,
“Only to the 7th grade.” He then took the problem to his professor
with this knowledge of the 7th grade and after another two weeks
told me very positively that his professor said it could not be done
— which is absolutely false. After this experience I was
disheartened, but not defeated. I tried getting several Ph.D.’s to let
me explain what I had discovered but they also refused because it
was hidden behind a door that had been nailed shut long ago and
because it contravened what they had been taught and what they
believed to be true.

To overcome this stubborn resistance and bring about this new
world, it is imperative that the knowledge in this book be
adequately understood which requires that the reader does not
apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false,
but that he understand the difference between a mathematical
relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so
utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking
clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that
have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification
please note that the words scientific and mathematical only mean
undeniable, and are interchanged throughout the text.

The
reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion
of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it
is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact
sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is
imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of
chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and
checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own rules
as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.

The laws of this universe, which include those
of our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required
to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone...
is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the
queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping
away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or
checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned
with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all
cost. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very
things religion, government, education and all others want, which
include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming
a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into
a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a
choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though
this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our
thinking since time immemorial?

This discovery will be presented
in a step by step fashion that brooks no opposition and your
awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone
adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an
accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to
disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable
proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of
your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school,
how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you do for
a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything
else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to
judge what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should
decide to give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two
other discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You can't give the empirical data. But you can give his astute observations.

Empirical means "observed," for fuck's sake!

David, stop using the word 'fuck' please. It's overly dramatic and you're one step away from using it toward me, as you did before. Thank you in advance. Empirical means testable, falsifiable, and proved through the gathering of data. Even though his conclusions came from astute observation and sound reasoning, there is a way to test his knowledge empirically.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have read the chapter. Lessans uses this phrase, and only this phrase. The explanations or analogies do not make sense to me. I need a different explanation or analogy. Can you provide one?

What he means by undeniable substance is substance that is real and can be identified and named. This includes anything that we can observe as part of the real world. Here are a few examples of undeniable substance: Cars, trees, desks, dogs, house, person, computer, book, lamp, eye, tooth, etc. There is very little, if any, disagreement among scientists that these pieces of substance are real. When he says a screen of undeniable substance, he is trying to get you to imagine a projector where life (and all the material things contained in it) is the screen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Presenting whatever as "I believe this is true..." or "In my view this" is one thing because what's to argue..."No you don't believe that!" or "No you do not hold that view!"*. That is not apologetics, and that is not presenting your beliefs as Truth For All!

*Of course that opens discussion such as the basis for your belief or view

Could you explain this in another way?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is unclear? You have no trouble understanding "Words projected through the eyes onto a screen of substance" but can't understand the difference between asserting something as fact and presenting it as a belief?

Your last post was unclear in the way it was written. Before I give answers, I like to be sure what it is I'm answering.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Also, how do deaf people see (and acquire language) according to your ideas, peacegirl? Would a deaf person who does not speak out loud be able to train a dog?

A deaf person is able to compensate using his other three senses and his vision to learn. Just because a person is deaf doesn't make him unable to do things a hearing person can do. It would be easy to train a dog even if a person was deaf. They could use hand gestures that a dog would learn to recognize. Any signal other than sound would suffice. When I talk about sight, I am only talking about facial recognition. Please don't read more into this than what was intended.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A deaf person is able to compensate using his other three senses and his vision to learn. Just because a person is deaf doesn't make him unable to do things a hearing person can do.

So would you predict that a deaf person who had no sense of smell or taste wouldn't be able to see?

[Doctor X]

FALLACY HOUR!

Hey, kids! Yesterday we covered the "Appeal to Keanu Reeves Fallacy!" Today, we return to another classic!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not questioning The Lone Ranger's knowledge. His knowledge is based on man's present understanding. . . .

Notice the fallacy she attempts--she tries to imply--via argumentum ad ignorantiam--that, somehow, in someway, that we will all learn that nearly two hundred years of observation and experimental confirmation is wrong and never happened!

Using davidm example:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not questioning The Lone Ranger's knowledge of the shape of the Earth. His knowledge is based on man's present understanding and he does a very good job. I even told him so. But how can you tell me to agree with something I don't?

Regarding her last sentence there, she tries to imply that there is any issue of her agreement: the shape of the Earth does not require agreement.

Nor does the visual pathways.

I'm truly sorry if I'm taking you out of your comfort zone.

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam--a wee bit of one there, kids! She is having a tantrum and tries to transfer it to davidm and others. "MY credit card is not rejected! YOU'RE rejected!"

We return then to the heart of the problem: her active ignorance of common knowledge. So long as you never study the evidence that the Earth is not flat, you can, psychologically, pretend that it is not.

--J. "The Turtle Moves" D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I call complete and utter BS. Indeed, I think that one can easily make the case that the shockingly-common belief in this society that sincere belief trumps mere logic and evidence (up to and including evidence which conclusively disproves the belief in question) is one of the most dangerous and pernicious things imaginable.

Tens of thousands have suffered and died unnecessarily because of people placing beliefs above evidence. Consider the denial of the link between HIV and AIDS, for instance, or the insistence that vaccines cause autism.

I agree that belief over evidence can be dangerous. But denial can also be a protective mechanism that could help a person accept his situation without it being totally overwhelming.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So are you now considering that it is possible for a dog to recognize his master (or any person) by sight, provided the dog is taught a name to associate with the person's face?

Yes, that's is exactly what I'm saying. If the eyes were a sense organ, a dog should be able to recognize his master (without the added help of his sense of smell or hearing), because the light is bringing the image to his eyes. If a dog is able to recognize a ball, a plush toy, or other objects, he should be able to identify his master's features when the word 'master' is used. But I'm not sure if a dog is capable of taking a photograph of a group of features (which is more complicated than one object) and associating them with a word, which would allow recognition to occur.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And yet, it remains an observed fact that photoreceptors in the retina depolarize when struck by photons of light, and that the impulses are then relayed by the optic nerve to the brain. That's not just an inconvenient fact.

Light is being transmitted, but when he said there is no afferent nerve ending in this organ, I believe he meant that the light is not involved in passing on chemical/electrical signals that convert into images, although that same light is essential for sight.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree that belief over evidence can be dangerous. But denial can also be a protective mechanism that could help a person accept his situation without it being totally overwhelming.

Looking in a mirror?

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I agree that gait is movement. Assuming that neither smell or sound are involved, what sense, other than sight, is the dog using to recognize his master by his movement/gait?

Light does transmit information due to its wavelength and frequency. When the camera clicks, it captures the wavelength which forms into a picture through a chemical process. So does a computer take in information called pixels to form a picture which then is seen on the computer screen. But the other half of this equation is the human brain. It is the relationship between animals and the external world that is under scrutiny, not a camera or a computer. It is assumed that the light that obviously has certain properties is carrying a signal that converts inside one's head. That is what he is disputing.

Intuitively you know that this is true, but unfortunately because of how words are learned, we can't avoid this conditioning, which is why it appears as if beauty exists objectively. You wouldn't put the wicked witch in a beauty contest, or someone who does not fit into the general description of a beautiful person.

Yes, it is a false label that has made certain people feel they are physiognomically inferior. This label (which does not symbolize anything real; if it did, we would not be having this discussion) has caused serious hurt to a large majority of people.

But here is the problem. If the eyes were a sense organ, beauty would exist because it would be reflected in the light. But as the author states, how is it possible for light to reflect a value that doesn't even exist in the external world?

What am I wrong about, in what way am I wrong about it and why do you think that? I have read everything that you have posted here from Chapter 4. That I may disagree with something that Lessans' has written in no way constitutes evidence that I am wrong. Unless, that is, you think that the mere fact of disagreeing with Lessens' is necessarily the equivalent of being wrong. Do you really believe that everything Lessans has written is infallible and inerrant? Or, at the very least, that Lessans being right ought to be the default position?

The default position is fine with me. You are wrong in my humble opinion because you don't yet understand why 100 out of 100 people could be attracted to faces that are symmetrical, but this does not mean that the symmetrical faces are any more beautiful than those with asymmetrical faces. It just means that the symmetrical faces appeal to those 100 people over asmmetrical faces. This makes a huge difference because one is a personal like, and the other creates a standard for everyone by the word itself.