A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

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?

There is nothing unusual that would make properties of light change. Why would you even ask that after all this time?

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1056701]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what is the argument?

My argument is, 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.

My question is what is the boundary of the inverse square law and how is that limit determined in your thinking?

[davidm]

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 has ignored the question, asshat. We have answered it for you about a thousand times now. Does your little bubblegum mind manage to recall anything that has been told you? Do you remember the lengthy discussions of the Hubble Telescope, to take but one example?

Of course, it is not true that we don't see images of the object when it is "out of range." So the assumption behind your question is stupid. What else is new?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But yes you are.

Really? What idea did I interject from the afferent model then?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But yes there is.

Really? What is my afferent assumption then?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your entire theory is a presupposition Spacemonkey. How ironic.

I think you're full of shit, Peacegirl. You are dishonestly weaseling.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing unusual that would make properties of light change. Why would you even ask that after all this time?

You used the word "becomes", which is usually defined as a process involving significant change from one form or set of traits/properties to another form or set of traits/properties.

Are you using the word becomes differently?

If not, describe the process of non-absorbed light becoming (or changing into) white light.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You used the word "becomes", which is usually defined as a process involving significant change from one form or set of traits/properties to another form or set of traits/properties.

Are you using the word becomes differently?

If not, describe the process of non-absorbed light becoming (or changing into) white light.

Perhaps it would be usefull for Peacegirl to post a link to the Lessans dictionary so that we could all be working from the same definitions. Or she could copy-paste the necessary sections for everyone to refer to. However I would caution against posting it in it's entirety, as that would be just too much concentrated humor for any sane person to endure. If it is a link to the complete volume, there should be a warning to 'Procede at your own risk'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the nonabsorbed light travels then: (i) You need to stop saying that it doesn't; and (ii) I am not interjecting afferent ideas by asking you about that traveling light.

The non-absorbed light DOES NOT TRAVEL, but the photons get replaced by new photons, so there is nothing static. The nonabsorbed photons are present at the film/retina because they are the mirror image. Therefore, they reveal what exists; they bring nothing. How many times to I have repeat this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooooooo spacemonkey, it does not teleport. You never were able to get the concept. You fail.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it doesn't teleport then you need to stop making claims that require teleportation. You need to stop saying that light from the newly ignited Sun can arrive at the eyes without traveling the intervening distance. You need to stop saying that non-absorbed light at the object can be instantly at the distant camera film. To make these claims is to say that light does teleport.

You are getting confused over non-absorbed photons and N light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever you say.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's true. You keep repeating the worthless claim that light works the same for vision and for photography, despite not being able to explain how it works in either case. So all you are effectively saying is that it is real-time in both cases, but you have no idea how this is achieved.

I will say, once again, that there is no difference between a camera and the eyes because both meet the requirements of real time vision and photography.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't have to keep repeating your mantra over and over again.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you disagree with that 'mantra'? Do you still believe that light can reach a location without either traveling there or teleporting? Please explain your further option if you have one.

I just explained it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-absorbed light DOES NOT TRAVEL, but the photons get replaced by new photons, so there is nothing static. The nonabsorbed photons are present at the film/retina because they are the mirror image. Therefore, they reveal what exists; they bring nothing. How many times to I have repeat this?

How many times does asshat have to repeat asinine statements? Anyone?

So, it doesn't travel. It's not absorbed. It doesn't reflect. it doesn't teleport. It doesn't hang around, but it gets replaced. What the fuck happens to it, then? How does it get replaced?

It just vanishes, is that it?

Well, there are more laws down the drain, the conservation laws, all so that Daddy can be right about stuff he pulled out of his ass while lining up another shot in the pool hall!

[davidm]

Spacemonkey, you are getting confused over non-absorbed photons and n light!

[LadyShea]

The non-absorbed light DOES NOT TRAVEL, but the photons get replaced by new photons, so there is nothing static.

Where are the photons that were replaced and what are they doing?

[Vivisectus]

Personally I would also like to know why Lessans assumed sight is efferent. There is no case for it in the book at all. There is just his claim that it is so: at no point does he explain why he reckons it is the best explanation for all the known facts.

Any chance of you addressing that peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why don't we approach this question from a different direction, for some much-needed variety?

In the book, I can find 3 reasons Lessans presents to believe that the eye is not a sense organ and works the way he claims it does:

1: The lack of afferent nerve endings in the optical nerve. He was mistaken about this: we can observe that this is the case.

The optic nerve isn't even technically part of the eye structure.

The optic nerve is the second of twelve paired cranial nerves but is considered to be part of the central nervous system. The name "optic nerve" is, in the technical sense, a misnomer, as the optic system lies within the central nervous system and therefore should be named the "optic tract," as nerves exist only, by definition, within the peripheral nervous system.

Optic nerve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2: Infant sight. Tests have been done on this, however, and the current scientific consensus is that infants can indeed see very well, albeit only at short range. They can also see faces well enough to mimic expressions.[/quote]

Newborns cannot mimic expressions.

3: Dog sight. Here too current scientific consensus is that dogs can indeed recognise faces.

Scientific consensus is not fact.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Are there any other reasons to assume sight worked the way Lessans assumed it works? Because as far as I can tell, he assumes reason (1) because he already believed sight worked the way he thought it did: he never studied the physiology of the eye and optical nerve, observed they are not afferent, and then reached his conclusions. As far as I can make out it is the other way around: his conclusion that the eye "has no afferent nerve endings" is based on his belief that sight works efferently and instantly.

Nor do I believe that 2 or 3 led him to his conclusion: that would be rather a big leap. It looks more like they were bits of common knowledge - now commonly believed to be misconceptions - that fitted the conclusion he had already reached.

That's not how he reached his conclusions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So what DID lead him to conclude that we somehow see outwards, instantly? Leaving aside the discussion about whether it would be possible at all, why did he believe it to be the case? He seems to spend a lot of time saying THAT it is so, but I cannot for the life of me discover any reason why we should assume this to be the case.

We know that reason (1) is incorrect. Even if for the sake of argument we assume the current scientific consensus is wrong and that infants and dogs cannot see faces, then this is not something that can only be accounted for by efferent sight: we can imagine many other explanations without much difficulty.

What is the conclusion that sight must be instant and efferent based on?

This was explained in Chapter Four. I know you don't think that this conditioning is proof, but if you analyze it carefully, you will see that it is the smoking gun. This conditioning could never occur if the eyes were a sense organ.

[peacegirl]

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?

There doesn't have to be a reason for the conclusion. It was an observation. If I am describing the design of a car, I don't have to give a reason for why it looks that way. It is simply a description. Similarly, he was simply describing what he observed: how the brain works in regard to words which separates the eyes from the other senses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

He did not start off with an assumption. He started off with an observation about how the brain works when it comes to learning words, and how we become conditioned. He then came to the conclusion that the eyes cannot be sense organs. Please reread this again.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 129-131

The belief in five senses made it
possible to imagine light waves hitting an object and then reflecting
an image to the eyes — for this appears logical — but how is it
possible for light to reflect a value that doesn’t even exist in the
external world? In the course of our children’s development they
learn other kinds of words that form inaccurate relations not only
because a judgment of personal value is given external reality by the
symbol itself, but also because the logic of unconscious syllogistic
reasoning confirms the apparent validity of inaccurate observations.
Let me show you how this was accomplished.

From the time we were small children our relatives, parents,
friends and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and
dislikes regarding things that definitely exist in the external world.
The words beautiful, pretty, cute, adorable, handsome, etc., heard over
and over again with an inflection of pleasure as to someone’s physical
appearance, took a picture of the similarities between this type of
physiognomy and developed negatives which also contained the degree
of feeling experienced. Similarly, an entire range of words heard over
and over again with an inflection of displeasure as to someone’s
physical characteristics, took a picture of the similarities between this
type of physiognomy and developed negatives containing the degree
of feeling experienced below this line of demarcation.

As time went
on a standard was established which separated good looks from bad
looks using a gradient that measured someone’s features against a
scale of perfection that did not symbolize reality. Not knowing what
the brain was able to do, we were convinced that one group of
similarities that were seen with our very eyes contained a lesser value
than the opposite similarities. We were unaware that the brain had
reversed the process by which these negatives were developed and then
projected onto the screen of undeniable differences a value that existed
only in our head.

It would not be long before this child would be
conditioned to desire associating with the one type while avoiding the
other, and as he would get older you would not be able to convince
him that an ugly or beautiful person did not exist as a definite part of
the real world, because he has witnessed these differences with his
eyes. The confusion between what is real and what is not comes from
the fact that these words not only describe real differences that exist
in the world, but they also create external values when there are no
such things. I will give you an example of this by using a movie
projector.

Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it. I
am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the
switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall.
But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl
is not there. We have been doing the same thing with our brain
regarding values. The differences in substance were not only divided
up by the use of words like man, woman, child, etc., but became a
screen upon which we were able to project this value. Drop a negative
plate or word slide in your brain projector and flip the switch. Well
just take a look, there is now a beautiful girl, a homely man, an ugly
duckling! Turn off the switch (remove the negative plate or word
slide) and all you see are the differences in substance because the
projected values have been removed. Since we were taught that the
eyes receive and transmit sense experience on the waves of light it was
impossible to deny that this beautiful girl actually existed and was a
part of the real world; and when we changed the standard hidden in
the word, all we did was change the screen.

By saying that this person
may not be beautiful physically but has a beautiful soul, we were
allowed to see ugly souls as if they, too, existed externally. Scientists,
believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed
what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was
possible to project a fallacious relation realistically. Consequently
everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through
which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if
the relation which is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an
inaccurate negative which is then projected realistically upon
undeniable substance.

The word ‘beautiful’ has absolutely no external
reality and yet because it is learned in association with a particular
physiognomy a beautiful girl is created, when no such person exists.
Obviously there is a difference between the shape and features of
individuals but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals
that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected
through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied — which
makes the projection appear real. By having the words beautiful, ugly,
gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector through which the brain
will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain
specific differences only because of the words which is then confirmed
as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful
women with his eyes, but in actual reality all he sees are different
shapes and different features.

This so-called beautiful girl is not
striking his optic nerve which then allows him to see her beauty but
instead he projects the word onto these differences and then
photographs a fallacious relation. The brain records all relations,
whether true or false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact
that man had five senses which were connected in some way with the
external world and since four of these were accurately described as
sense organs, that is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was
very easy for Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further
investigation by including the eyes in the definition, which he did only
because he never understood their true function.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The optic nerve isn't even technically part of the eye structure.

The optic nerve is the second of twelve paired cranial nerves but is considered to be part of the central nervous system. The name "optic nerve" is, in the technical sense, a misnomer, as the optic system lies within the central nervous system and therefore should be named the "optic tract," as nerves exist only, by definition, within the peripheral nervous system.

You really can't help but display your abject ignorance, can you?

First of all, since the optic nerve is the axons of the neurons of the retina, it most-definitely is "part of the eye structure." In the strictest technical sense, the entire retina of the eye is part of the Central Nervous System, since it develops as an outgrowth of the brain.

Second, you have no idea at all what the words "nerve" and "tract" mean. We call myelinated axons that are bundled together by epineurium "nerves" in the peripheral nervous system and "tracts" in the central nervous system. This is merely a convention in order to indicate whether we're talking about PNS or CNS structures. Since the optic nerve does indeed extend out beyond the brain proper, it is typically referred to as a "nerve" in common discourse.

Technically, the entire structure is the "optic tract," but anatomically, we distinguish between the optic nerve (the portion before the optic chiasma, the portion which extends out beyond the brain proper) and the optic tract (the portion after the optic chiasma, the portion that lies entirely within the CNS).

The same is true of the olfactory nerve/tract too, by the way.


If you're going to talk about the anatomy and physiology of the optic pathway, do try not to sound like an idiot. It doesn't help your cause at all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not start off with an assumption. He started off with an observation about how the brain works when it comes to learning words, and how we become conditioned. He then came to the conclusion that the eyes cannot be sense organs. Please reread this again.

[/I]

LOL, he concluded that conditioning was something other than what is known to be (which is psychological) because he couldn't have empirically observed it, then backwards justified it with some crazy shit about vision. You really have a whole separate dictionary don't you?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This conditioning could never occur if the eyes were a sense organ.

This conditioning does occur but it has nothing to do with the eyes, conditioning happens entirely in the brain, and the eyes are sense organs.

[davidm]

Remember, the optic nerve isn't part of the eye structure!

Oh, the things you learn in a peacegirl thread!

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1056756]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

3: Dog sight. Here too current scientific consensus is that dogs can indeed recognise faces.

Scientific consensus is not fact.

Scientific consensus is as close as anyone is going to get to a fact, and orders of magnatude closer that Lessans ever got.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He started off with an observation about how the brain works when it comes to learning words, and how we become conditioned. He then came to the conclusion that the eyes cannot be sense organs.

Except that his observations on the workings of the brain and conditioning lead him to incorrect conclusions, so his conclusions were wrong, the eyes are sense organs. He was a self-centered arrogant buffoon.

[Angakuk]

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.

When the individual photons that make up the non-absorbed light reach the alleged limit set by the inverse square law and join up with all the other light energy coming from the sun (i.e. become white light), do those individual photons travel in the company of that light energy or do they not?

[Vivisectus]

The optic nerve isn't even technically part of the eye structure.

That may be as it is, but it does not change anything, now does it? We are still certain that this was something about which he was actually mistaken, and that is a part of his conclusion, not a reason to believe sight works the way he said it works.

Newborns cannot mimic expressions.

I realize that it is your opinion that they cannot, and that is fine. The two point remain: 1) the scientific consensus is that they can. But even if they are wrong, 2) efferent sight is not a necessary conclusion leading from your opinion about infant sight.

3: Dog sight. Here too current scientific consensus is that dogs can indeed recognise faces.

Scientific consensus is not fact.

Sure. But even if the opinion of every known expert is wrong, that still does not give us any reason to believe that efferent sight must be the answer. It could just be that sight works the normal way, but that dog's are simply do not posses the instinct to recognize human faces, or lack a hard-wired mechanism in the brain that allows them to do so, or perhaps they CAN but they simply are instinctually not predisposed to attribute any importance to it. Do you see what I am getting at here? What, in this (and in infant sight), points to the specific conclusion that sight works the way your father said?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Are there any other reasons to assume sight worked the way Lessans assumed it works? Because as far as I can tell, he assumes reason (1) because he already believed sight worked the way he thought it did: he never studied the physiology of the eye and optical nerve, observed they are not afferent, and then reached his conclusions. As far as I can make out it is the other way around: his conclusion that the eye "has no afferent nerve endings" is based on his belief that sight works efferently and instantly.

That's not how he reached his conclusions.

So how did he?

This was explained in Chapter Four. I know you don't think that this conditioning is proof, but if you analyze it carefully, you will see that it is the smoking gun. This conditioning could never occur if the eyes were a sense organ.

That is part of the conclusion. Are you telling me he assumed a part of his conclusion was correct and presented it as proof that his conclusion was correct? Surely that cannot be right!

The conditioning is part of his exposition about how he believes sight works, as opposed to how we have always believed sight works. It is, in fact, what he is (or at least should be) trying to prove is actually going on.

What I am asking is: apart from the things mentioned above, what did he base these conclusions on? What made him think this conditioning is what is going on? What led him to believe that efferent sight was the most plausible and elegant explanation?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

Putting it a little more simply and concisely, there are "observations of" and "observations about". Lessans' "astute observations" consistently belong to the latter category.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And what frequency is 'white light'?

Often

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There doesn't have to be a reason for the conclusion. It was an observation. If I am describing the design of a car, I don't have to give a reason for why it looks that way. It is simply a description. Similarly, he was simply describing what he observed: how the brain works in regard to words which separates the eyes from the other senses.

What kind of silliness is this? No reason is required for a conclusion? Surely you spoke hastily and want to reconsider that statement?

If I conclude that my rather rotund belly is caused by fat-ass fairies who fly out of my bum and feed me skittles in the dead of night, am I not required to explain why I have come to this conclusion? Can I just claim that this is something I observed indirectly through divining the hidden nature of things? Of course not! And yet I can call it an "Astute observation" or "a description of how my belly works in regards to its rotundity which seperates it from all other bellies, which are round because of too much delicious pork liver pate, wine and mussels-and-cream dinners"

One can call other posters impression of you as a nutjob "an observation" too. Do you accept it? if not, why not? What differentiates your fathers observations from theirs?