A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

How is light "interacting with the retina" before the light arrives? Please be specific.

You're, once again, assuming that light has to traverse this distance in order to reach the retina. But if one of the requirements is that the object has to be in visual range, and the camera has to be aimed at the object (these are the premises of efferent vision which will turn the scientific world on its head), then the light that is revealing said object has to be at the camera as a mirror image. Just mull over that for awhile before jumping to the conclusion that Lessans was wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who do you think will give you these endorsements?

I have plenty of people in mind. Even if they aren't scientists but are spiritual leaders or musicians or what have you, hopefully it will get this book on the map. I have to start somewhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I may not respect peacegirl but I have to admit to a certain grudging admiration for her persistence. Her stamina, whether it is rooted in faith or insanity, is truly remarkable.

I haven't had anyone ever say anything nice about me, so thanks!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're, once again, assuming that light has to traverse this distance in order to reach the retina. But if one of the requirements is that the object has to be in visual range, and the camera has to be aimed at the object (these are the premises of efferent vision which will turn the scientific world on its head), then the light that is revealing said object has to be at the camera as a mirror image. Just mull over that for awhile before jumping to the conclusion that Lessans was wrong.

What does the mirror image consist of and where is it located?
How does the light that has not arrived actually physically touch camera film?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have plenty of people in mind. Even if they aren't scientists but are spiritual leaders or musicians or what have you, hopefully it will get this book on the map. I have to start somewhere.

And why are you here talking to us instead of making the early contact necessary to eventually get endorsements they may or may not be willing to give?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that's what humans do if they get excited about something, but before I start marketing this way, I have to plan it very strategically. I think the best way to go about this is to get some endorsements first. The last thing I need are people skimming it and giving bad reviews just because they don't understand it. This is not easy reading for the average person, as you well know.

It's not easy reading for anybody. The writing style is awful. It rambles aimlessly. It spends too much time on silly nonsense. It contains details of Lessans life that make him look like an idiot. When it finally gets to an important point, it just throws it out there with no support. It requires the reader suspend reason as they are pummeled with drivel.

You will never get a celebrity to endorse this book unless you pay them and they don't read the book.

[peacegirl]

If you are on the topic of the senses, please post in this thread. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What he meant by that is that the brain does not receive images from the optic nerve which, by definition, is what it should be doing if the eyes are a sense organ.

So then, we can add "physicist" to the ever-burgeoning list of grown-up words you don't understand. Check.

Physicists study the natural world, from the tiniest subatomic particles to the largest galaxies. They do experiments to discover the laws of nature. They study what things are made of (matter) and how things behave. They also learn about energy, studying how it changes from one form to another.

Physicist

Just because Lessans wasn't a physicist doesn't mean that physics is not an important field. The majority of discoveries are made in the actual field, but not always.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

To recap, Lessans wrote that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the eye. His statement was incorrect as a simple matter of fact, as peacegirl has tacitly admitted.

Ya can't help but wonder how hard, if at all, Lessans himself would be defending "efferent vision"1 at this point. peacegirl assures us that Lessans was a paragon of intellectual integrity. peacegirl's claims are unreliable, what with her being a craven serial prevaricator and all, but if Lessans had even a tenth of the integrity peacegirl claims, he'd have dumped "efferent vision" on finding out that his statement about "afferent nerve endings" was 180 degrees off.

He was not off at all. I already gave this excerpt plenty of times but obviously it has made no impact on you whatsoever. For those who are serious about understanding what Lessans meant when he said that there are no afferent nerve endings in the eye, please reread.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 118-119

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent
nerve ending in this organ.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

peacegirl doesn't have that luxury. For her, "efferent vision" is an article of faith. Lessans is no longer around to say "I was wrong about vision," and nothing short of God's Messenger saying exactly that can qualify as sufficient disproof for her. Thus, she's condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze.

1 Entertainingly enough, the term "efferent vision" appears nowhere in The Decline and Fall of All Rationality. That term appears to be a heresy of peacegirl's manufacture.

As long as I get my point across, who cares whether I say efferent vision, efferent model, efferent experience, etc. It all means the same thing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what I said. I am home a lot due to a health condition and sharing this knowledge online has a socialization aspect to it, but this is not the main reason for my coming here. I'm here because I have a need to share this discovery and until I start marketing this book (which is coming soon), this thread is what I'm stuck with.

If you know what you said then you were lying when you said you weren't speaking of yourself personally. You are at home a lot with a mental condition, and sharing this non-knowledge online provides you with the negative attention you crave. You are here out of a compulsive need to share Lessans' non-discovery. It is not a rational desire to productively spread his ideas, because you continue even when you know everyone here has long since concluded that he was obviously flat-out wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your saying so doesn't make it so. If this is all you have to offer, then let it go. I will too. I can no longer fight a losing battle.

You can and will continue, because you are mentally ill and incapable of leaving.

[LadyShea]

there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

That is false, the optic nerve is afferent

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You're, once again, assuming that light has to traverse this distance in order to reach the retina. But if one of the requirements is that the object has to be in visual range, and the camera has to be aimed at the object (these are the premises of efferent vision which will turn the scientific world on its head), then the light that is revealing said object has to be at the camera as a mirror image. Just mull over that for awhile before jumping to the conclusion that Lessans was wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does the mirror image consist of and where is it located?
How does the light that has not arrived actually physically touch camera film?

You are not understanding why it doesn't matter how far away something is in reality, as long as it's large enough to be seen. If it is large enough and bright enough for the lens to be aimed at the object, then the light that is revealing the object has to be at the camera.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have plenty of people in mind. Even if they aren't scientists but are spiritual leaders or musicians or what have you, hopefully it will get this book on the map. I have to start somewhere.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And why are you here talking to us instead of making the early contact necessary to eventually get endorsements they may or may not be willing to give?

I should be getting early contacts but I got sidetracked again. I have to sit down and really come up with a good letter, and I'm procrastinating. I only have a few chapters left to go over and then I will have to move on the next phase. Another reason I am not doing it this way is that I would rather have the book available rather than have them waiting and wondering what it's all about. I can't tell them right off the bat that it's a discovery that will prevent war and crime, or they might get turned off.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your cop out is that I'm mentally ill, but I hope that you are an individual who will give Lessans the attention he deserves. God is in charge, so all of this is in His hands. What I mean by this is if something is meant to be recognized as truth, we don't have the ability to know when this will occur, but we can feel confident that it will occur when it is supposed to occur. Does this make sense to you?

Constantly resorting to mental illness is a cop out and an easy way to free yourself of any responsibility in your lack of understanding.

Responding to the same post twice without ever addressing its content is a further sign of your mental illness. Lessans has been given far more attention than he deserves, as have you. His refuted nonsense is not meant to be recognized as truth, but your words make perfect sense as an expression of your delusional faith.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is false, the optic nerve is afferent

But it does not relay images to the brain for recognition. It sends impulses but it doesn't do what sense organs do. That's what he meant LadyShea.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I answered this post already.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Now that we've established that there are no eyes involved in real-time photography, and that I am therefore not making any mistake in asking only about the light involved, perhaps you could answer the above two questions?

Or would you prefer to waste everybody's time by trying to invent another bogus excuse?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1055973][quote=Spacemonkey;1055820]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you are saying that when the Sun is turned on, there will be a 'mirror image' at the eye but no light yet at the eye, right?

So what does that mirror image consist of?

A mirror image is non-absorbed light that is at the retina. We can see the Sun because it is large enough and bright enough to be seen, but we can't see each other because the light being emitted from the Sun is not here yet, so it doesn't meet the requirements of sight. If there's no light surrounding you, how can I see you?

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1055975]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Now that we've established that there are no eyes involved in real-time photography, and that I am therefore not making any mistake in asking only about the light involved, perhaps you could answer the above two questions?

Or would you prefer to waste everybody's time by trying to invent another bogus excuse?

How many times do I have to explain why a photographs would work the same way as the retina? And I already explained 1000 times that regardless of where the object is in the camera's field of view, the same mirror image will show up as it would on the retina.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the afferent theory Spacemonkey. If the object is in range (which is not required in the afferent model), and if the non-absorbed light reveals the object but does not travel (although the non-absorbed photons are continually being replaced by the Sun's energy), then you are misunderstanding what is actually happening. You are still imagining a great distance between the object and the camera which would then cause a time delay. But if the camera is aimed at the object, then the light becomes an instant mirror image just like it does with the eyes, and there is no time involved.

But Peacegirl, this is stupid! You've again claimed that the non-absorbed light doesn't travel, apparently forgetting that you've just been telling us otherwise. I quoted you yesterday contradicting yourself on this saying both that it does and does not travel. You were insisting that you aren't saying that it doesn't travel, but now you're saying exactly that once more. If it doesn't travel then what does it do? If the non-absorbed light doesn't stay there at rest and doesn't travel away, then what does it do?

You also say that this non-absorbed light at the object forms an instant mirror image at the eyes without any time involved. But in case you've forgotten, that is teleportation. Getting from one point to another distant point in zero time is teleporting.

You are making the same errors over and over and over again. When will you seek help for your cognitive impairment?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're, once again, assuming that light has to traverse this distance in order to reach the retina.

I'm not assuming anything; I'm just going by what you wrote. It was you who said both that "light is interacting with the retina" and that the light "hasn't arrived yet." My question was premised on your own clear and unequivocal statements.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if one of the requirements is that the object has to be in visual range, and the camera has to be aimed at the object (these are the premises of efferent vision which will turn the scientific world on its head), then the light that is revealing said object has to be at the camera as a mirror image.

1) One of the requirements of what? Your reference is unclear.

2) The subject matter of this exchange is light interacting with the retina. Why are you talking about cameras?

3) I thought your position was that light doesn't carry, form or constitute images. If that's the case, why are you equating the light that illuminates the object with a "mirror image"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just mull over that for awhile before jumping to the conclusion that Lessans was wrong.

Well, we know with certainty that Lessans was wrong in claiming that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the eye. In truth, the human visual system is laden with "afferent nerve endings." Had Lessans know that he was incorrect about the physiology, do you think that knowledge would have affected his claims about vision at all? If so, how?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're, once again, assuming that light has to traverse this distance in order to reach the retina.

If the light can reach the retina without traveling the intervening distance, then it has teleported.

[Vivisectus]

You have yourself a real catch 22 here. You do not want to turn them off, and yet you want them to endorse the book, which means they will have to read it. Tall order.

Perhaps you can hide in the bushes as they open the book, whack them in the back of the head with a shovel, and then hope to God that the concussion will make them think the book makes sense?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's a normal reaction to a situation that is getting unbearable.

No, a normal reaction would be either to leave, or to show that you are not mentally ill by simply answering the questions asked of you.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, you posted both of the following two contradictory claims less than three hours apart:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no non traveling light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the non-absorbed light reveals the object but does not travel...

Get help Peacegirl. You are not well.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously light is interacting with the retina due to the fact that the object can be seen. If the object can be seen (in real time), then the light's job, so to speak, is not to bring any images anywhere. The light's property is to reveal what's out there in the material world. But if there is no light on Earth because it hasn't arrived yet, then the requirement for seeing you, who is next to me, hasn't been met, therefore, I have to wait 8 minutes.

How can light be interacting with the retina without actually being at the retina? How can light be at the retina as soon as the Sun is turned on? Light getting from one place to another instantly and without traveling the intervening distance is teleportation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

And you can present a deluded woman with evidence of her own insanity, but you can't make her seek help.