A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

You would think that wouldn't you. However, I think that is just what Lessans did. He began with an idea about about conditioning and then reasoned (if you want to dignify the process with that word) backwards to efferent vision.

[thedoc]

I think this is worth repeating,

This entire debate on vision is the result of a misunderstanding of the observations of a psychological phenomena that was misintrepreted as a physiological effect. People regularily look at a scene or object and 'see' inacurately what is there. It is a common phenomena but is purely psychological and has nothing to do with the physiological nature of vision. Many drivers in the US will pass a Yield Sign, the light will convey the image to the eyes and thence to the brain of a 'red and white' sign but the brain will substitute the older and more familiar yellow and black image, and the person will think that is what they saw. Lessans observed this and other errors of preception and mistakenly concluded that the brain was projecting the image out onto the 'blank' screen of the outside world. This inacurate intrepretation of visual images is a common phenomena but has nothing to do with the mind projecting outward, but is strictly an internal substitution of a more familiar and expected image for the real image transmitted via. light to the eye and then to the brain. It is an internal psychological confusion that has given rise to this erronous concept that vission is efferent and not afferent. Astute observation but complete misunderstanding and misintrepretation of those observations.

[LadyShea]

That's exactly what he did, he worked backwards. peacegirl has even asserted that the kind of conditioning Lessans proposed could not happen if vision were not efferent. She offered it as the proof of efferent vision at least once.

[Vivisectus]

I have argued your very point in the past, Doc, and added the observation that sight can work either way and not conflict with the rest of his ideas. But the point is that if this book is to be logical and scientific, then we need a more compelling reason to assume sight works the way Lessans claimed it does. Currently I can see no observation that requires the conclusion that Lessans reached to explain it.

Which is why I am asking the question: what reason is offered to believe that sight works the way Lessans claimed? I am not talking about evidence from tests that have not been done yet, I am asking for the evidence that convinced Lessans. There must have been some, if he did not just make it up. Am I missing anything, or have I correctly shown the totality of the evidence that is offered in the book?

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...which kind of makes you wonder how we deal with anything new and unexpected!

But that is part of the conclusion, not the reason for the conclusion. You cannot say that sight being the mind projecting word-slides unto reality is an observable fact that makes efferent sight the only possible conclusion. I am asking: what is the conclusion that this is what is going on based on?

I think it starts with simple intuitive notions of seeing - such as we probably all had as children before we learned about light, lenses and such.

Seeing feels like an active process: we choose to aim our eyes in a certain direction and then we get to know what objects are in that direction. It's analogous to the sense of touch: we reach out with our arms so that our hands can feel an object. Using our eyes, we also 'reach out' and 'feel' an object or scene - a process we call seeing.

The same reasoning can't be as easily applied to the senses of hearing, smell or taste: those senses are not directional and we can't 'switch them off' as we can with sight by looking away or closing our eyes.

I think Lessans had the desire to show that we don't see reality but rather project our preconceived notions out onto the world. Most of us would probably agree with him about that, but we don't need the efferent sight model to support the idea.

Lessans hit on the idea of using the efferent sight model as a natural explanation of such projection. He was too uneducated and too bombastic to consider that he might be wrong and he gradually added layer upon layer of supporting belief to the erroneous idea. In his own mind, the efferent sight model became part of the foundations for his world peace scheme so of course he was very reluctant to give up on efferent vision, even when challenged with evidence that proved it wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once again, the man couldn't say what he meant and so made a completely wrong and false statement instead. Is this inability to express your thoughts clearly and say what you mean genetic or learned?

His exact words were patently false.

According to whom? YOU???

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So focusing on an object has nothing to do with light magically having no distance to travel.

No, but it indicates that without the object in the field of view, THERE IS NO IMAGE TO SPEAK OF!

Originally Posted by Dragar

So explain: how does a hole magically cause this?

The hole doesn't cause anything, but it gathers light due to the object being present. You are assuming that all that is necessary is light. That is why I am harping on doing experiments here on Earth. How many times did I ask this question: Why are there never images seen when the object (the material substance) is not within visual range. Everyone is conveniently ignoring this question or their answers are unsatisfactory. The inverse square law does not answer the question.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1056534]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no "beyond" the inverse square law, because it is not in a location, it is has no mass nor does it take up space, nor does it have a limited size nor an outer perimeter nor any kind of boundary whatsoever. There is no end point to go beyond or anything to prohibit going beyond.

So, what do you really mean when you say this, since obviously you must mean something other than what you said, as what you said makes no sense at all.

It does make sense if you are thinking in terms of efferent vision. It means exactly what it says. If the object is not in view then that means the non-absorbed light which reveals the object has now joined with the other colors in the visual spectrum, which is why we only will get white light on the retina/film, not the pattern that supposedly travels forever and ever and ever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am going to pretend, for the sake of argument, that the above actually means something. So, supposing that it does mean something, what happens to the non-absorbed light after it reaches this so-called limit?

It becomes white light because light energy from the Sun contains all of the colors of the visible spectrum, and that is what travels.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, that's not any better. You need to do more than just correct your false claims (that the nonabsorbed light doesn't travel, and that it teleports). Your only response to my refutation was based on those false claims, so you need to provide a new response. That's why I reposted the refutation for you. Once more:

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

The problem here is that you are still thinking in terms of afferent vision. The minute you mention that the pattern of light has bounced off the ball, what I'm saying won't make sense. If that were the case, then yes, the color could change within that time. If we see efferently, then the distance is not millions of miles away. Seeing a candle in a dark room meets the requirements of efferent vision and seeing the moon at night meets the requirements of efferent vision, but we know there's a great disparity because the visual cortex is able to interpret the true distance.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem here is that you are still thinking in terms of afferent vision. The minute you mention that the pattern of light has bounced off the ball, what I'm saying won't make sense. If that were the case, then yes, the color could change within that time. If we see efferently, then the distance is not millions of miles away. Seeing a candle in a dark room meets the requirements of efferent vision and seeing the moon at night meets the requirements of efferent vision, but we know there's a great disparity because the visual cortex is able to interpret the true distance.

Are you now saying that the non-absorbed red photons from the light hitting the newly red ball do not bounce off and travel towards the camera?

Is this what you are saying? [Y/N]

If so, then what happens to these red photons immediately after hitting the ball? Where are they at the very next moment?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I ask this question: Why are there never images seen when the object (the material substance) is not within visual range. Everyone is conveniently ignoring this question or their answers are unsatisfactory. The inverse square law does not answer the question.

No-one is ignoring your eternally recurring question. It has been answered, and answered correctly, a thousand times over. You however, have made it clear that you will continue to reject these correct answers as unsatisfactory simply because they are not what you want to believe. Continuing to ask the same question under these circumstances is strongly indicative of mental illness.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but it indicates that without the object in the field of view, THERE IS NO IMAGE TO SPEAK OF!

So, out of interest, what would happen if we just sent light through the hole in a pattern as if it had bounced off an object? Would we see an image?

Maybe we could make a device that shone light in just such a pattern through a hole. What do you think?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The hole doesn't cause anything, but it gathers light due to the object being present. You are assuming that all that is necessary is light. That is why I am harping on doing experiments here on Earth. How many times did I ask this question: Why are there never images seen when the object (the material substance) is not within visual range. Everyone is conveniently ignoring this question or their answers are unsatisfactory. The inverse square law does not answer the question.

So the hole doesn't cause anything.

So when you said:

"Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT."

what did you actually mean? Because currently you have denied it had anything to do with a lens, or focusing. So what did you mean to say?

"Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the film if ______."

Please fill in the blank.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It becomes white light because light energy from the Sun contains all of the colors of the visible spectrum, and that is what travels.

Can you describe the process by which it "becomes" white light? What kind of light is it before it "becomes" white light? Does it change its properties?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have argued your very point in the past, Doc, and added the observation that sight can work either way and not conflict with the rest of his ideas. But the point is that if this book is to be logical and scientific, then we need a more compelling reason to assume sight works the way Lessans claimed it does. Currently I can see no observation that requires the conclusion that Lessans reached to explain it.

Which is why I am asking the question: what reason is offered to believe that sight works the way Lessans claimed? I am not talking about evidence from tests that have not been done yet, I am asking for the evidence that convinced Lessans. There must have been some, if he did not just make it up. Am I missing anything, or have I correctly shown the totality of the evidence that is offered in the book?

Yes and I have argued it several times as well, my post was a quote from a previous post of mine #3613 on 05-07-'11. I believe the only reason we are given to believe this model, is Lessans assertion about his 'astute observations' which lead to his conclusions, however I also believe that Lessans was not useing 'observation' in the usual sense. Sometimes the word is used in reference to an idea that you have and then state that idea something like "If I could make an observation . . . . . . " where the 'observation' is not of an act or event that you have witnessed, but a concept that you are relating, something like an insight. Of course this kind of observation does not fit anyone's definition of evidence but I think Lessans felt so sure of his ideas, and believed them to be self-evident, that he felt no need to elaborate on them. I have also argued in the past that one of Lessans biggest mistakes in his methodology in writing the book, was that he worked alone and had no-one to proof read and check for errors. However I'm not sure how he would have reacted to someone pointing out errors of logic and reasoning, or the lack of evidence, they would have probably ended up in the book as part of his butthurt rant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to whom? YOU???

Just about everyone.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just about everyone.

Including Peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Including Peacegirl.

Shhhhh, you'll burst her bubble.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can you describe the process by which it "becomes" white light? What kind of light is it before it "becomes" white light? Does it change its properties?

And what frequency is 'white light'?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to whom? YOU???

According to the fact that there are afferent nerves in the human visual system, though Lessans said explicitly there were not.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1056667]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It means exactly what it says. If the object is not in view then that means the non-absorbed light which reveals the object has now joined with the other colors in the visual spectrum, which is why we only will get white light on the retina/film, not the pattern that supposedly travels forever and ever and ever.

That's not at all what it says. It says "non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law". As if the inverse square law has a locational boundary.

[naturalist.atheist]

At this point it doesn't matter what misperception and distortions Lessans was operating under. Whatever Lessans presented, right or wrong, peacegirl as his editor will scramble it. As she has scrambled everything presented to her. Lessans is dead, his book was published, his place in history, insignificant as it is, is set.

What we've been witnessing here is the on going degradation of peacegirls mental abilities, which were probably not ever all that good.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, you have disregarded every single thing I said. You are constipated Spacemonkey because you can't get off the idea that images, without the object, are interpreted in the brain. You can't even begin to compare these two models because you keep interjecting ideas that come from the afferent model. Seriously, I give up.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not interjecting any ideas from the afferent model.

But yes you are.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Apparently you've repeated this lie so many times it's actually become a part of your delusion. THERE IS NO AFFERENT ASSUMPTION HERE.

But yes there is.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you think otherwise, then tell me what it is. All I'm doing is asking for the locations (at certain times) of the nonabsorbed photons and the photons comprising the alleged mirror image. You agree that these photons exist, and if they exist then they have to have locations at any time they exist. Nothing else is presupposed.

Your entire theory is a presupposition Spacemonkey. How ironic.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

I'm not letting you go there because your premise is faulty. This question tells me definitively that you are thinking in terms of afferent vision which will prove you right every time. Do you want to be right, or do you want to know the truth? It's your choice.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

You lose.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1056684]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not at all what it says. It says "non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law". As if the inverse square law has a locational boundary.

So what is the argument?

[LadyShea]

He is asking for the locations (at certain times) of the nonabsorbed photons and the photons comprising the alleged mirror image. You, peacegirl, agree that these photons exist, and if they exist then they have to have locations at any time they exist.

Where is the afferent assumption?