A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

I'm not telling you to believe in efferent sight if you aren't convinced. I'm offering his observations which I believe are accurate.

They are not observations - they are ideas, conclusions. I would call them hypotheses if they were coherent, which they are not. Observations are different things.

It's up to each individual to decide what they want to take from this. If they aren't sure that he is correct but want to give him the benefit of the doubt, then at least your mind is open enough to await further testing.

So there really IS no case for it then, apart from what was already discussed? But then my mind can be as open to these ideas as they are for the fat-arse fairies: I will start believing they exist, and that Lessans ideas make sense the very moment I see any reason to believe any of the two. Currently there is none. Maybe, one day, some new observations will surface that make us think otherwise. Who knows!

Any more of an open mind than that is simply being credulous, don't you agree?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

Because the great man said that it was! And, if he had noticed that he was wrong, he would have said so; but he didn't say he was wrong, so he was right! Obviously!

You need to wake up from your nap and smell the pudding, Vivisectus!

You are referring to chocolate pudding?

[davidm]

The proof that is in peacegirl's pudding, which in this case is chocolate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

They are not observations - they are ideas, conclusions. I would call them hypotheses if they were coherent, which they are not. Observations are different things.

So there really IS no case for it then, apart from what was already discussed? But then my mind can be as open to these ideas as they are for the fat-arse fairies: I will start believing they exist, and that Lessans ideas make sense the very moment I see any reason to believe any of the two. Currently there is none. Maybe, one day, some new observations will surface that make us think otherwise. Who knows!

Any more of an open mind than that is simply being credulous, don't you agree?

It's okay that you don't think his observations are credible or even worth testing. This isn't about convincing you. It's about determining the truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean "just peripheral"? The CNS is always "involved"

the nervous system

Two main components of the PNS:

sensory (afferent) pathways that provide input from the body into the CNS.
motor (efferent) pathways that carry signals to muscles and glands (effectors).

Thanks!

[The Lone Ranger]

It's not as if this hasn't been explained to you before -- repeatedly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I ask again, since you ignored it last time, where, on Earth can you find a place where these is no absorption of light going on to provide non-absorbed light in every direction?

You're absolutely right. It's absorption of specific wavelength light that allows us to see what we see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
The eye most-definitely does contain afferent neurons -- millions of them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wanted to add that Lessans did not say there are no afferent neurons. He said there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye that make direct contact with a receptor.

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.

[Vivisectus]

I have as little reason to believe Lessans view represents the truth as I have to believe that the fairies-theory-of-why-my-pants-don't-fit-properly-anymore does. How do you determine what is true? Do you not require a compelling reason to believe something is true?

And if it really was truth Lessans was after, do you not think he would have checked his facts?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
The eye most-definitely does contain afferent neurons -- millions of them.

Didn't I already point out that it's a bad idea to demonstrate your total ignorance of visual anatomy, because it just makes you look stupid?

First of all, "nerve endings" are neurons. More precisely, nerve endings are the dendrites and/or axons of neurons.

Second, there most-definitely are afferent nerve endings in the eye that make direct contact with the [photo]receptors in the eye -- millions of them!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is irrelevant, and also nonsensical. you said "if light strikes the optic nerve" (it doesn't. It striked the retina, which in turn sends impulses down the optic nerve) then the nerve has to connect to the brain - this is nonsense. Light striking something does not mean it must logically be connected to the brain.

Apart from that, we can SEE the damn thing connects to the brain

All that has nothing to do with the point, which was that Lessans had no evidence that proves that light is NOT interpreted in the way we currently think.

At most we can say: contrary to all experts, Lessans believed that the optic nerve does not carry impulses to the brain, caused by light striking the retina, which are interpreted by the brain as images. He believed that something else was going on, which led him to say that the eye does not have afferent nerve endings in it.

He did not say that. He said that the eye does not have afferent nerve endings that have direct contact with a receptor.

Originally Posted by vivisectus

2: His claim that dogs cannot recognize faces.

Even if this is true, then it is a fact that is merely compatible with efferent sight, but is not proof that sight is efferent. Nor is it compatible exclusively with efferent sight: it is also compatible with normal sight in many different ways.

Efferent sight is normal sight.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Irrelevant. The point remains that even if dogs cannot recognise faces, that is merely something that is compatible with efferent sight. It is not indicative of it. It is also compatible with a theory that states sight is afferent, but that dogs are not neurologically set up to recognise them, for instance.

But wouldn't that be rather odd considering that dogs are neurologically set up to recognize what it is they smell, hear, taste, and touch, so why wouldn't they be able to recognize their master's features if that was their only working sense?

He is giving his observations. This model is just as valid as the afferent model because no one has proved what goes on inside of the brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Irrelevant, and incorrect. Once again he merely states his belief THAT it works that way. Saying that it works a certain way is not an argument in favour of it working that way. Saying that the model is just as valid is also irrelevant. I am sure that it is your opinion that this is so. But what we are investigating is why we should believe that it is correct. I have yet to find one.

He did not state a belief. He had grounds for why he said what he said.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The fact remains that even if he is correct about infant sight, then the same applies as with dog sight: it is not indicative that his idea is correct. It is merely compatible with it.

These are absolutely indicative that his observations are correct although these are not the only ones.

Originally Posted by vivsectus

These are the only things I can find that even remotely resemble arguments in favour. As you can see they are woefully inadequate.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I would like to point out that you still have not come up with an argument in favour of your fathers position.

I don't have to argue for his position. Proof of the pudding is in the eating. I have to offer his observations, and then they need to be tested for accuracy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that. From his direct observations, he made inferences which I believe were spot on.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But he does not share these direct observations of observable facts - if he made any. In fact there is no hint anywhere in the book of any of them. As such, we cannot see if they warranted the conclusions he drew. I can tell you that I have observed fairies, and then present you with a lengthy exposition about what they do all day. That does not give you any reason to assume I am correct: it merely gives you a reason to assume that I seem to believe in fairies.

But fairies are not seen anywhere. If I describe a tree to you, I am describing something real.

I disagree that we can't see directly how children learn words. We can even see this from observing how Helen Keller associated the sign that was spelled out in her hand with the object that it described.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We could observe Helen's behaviour. We cannot directly observe how she learns words.

No we can't go inside her brain to learn the process of how she finally got the connection, but we can visually see that she did, in fact, make a connection between the sign and the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did exactly what a scientist does, but didn't write down his findings because he didn't start out with a hypothesis. He saw patterns in behavior as he studied and read, which led him to these findings. I am not against testing his claims.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

A scientist would not present his conclusions without offering a reason to believe they are correct. So far, neither you nor the book have offered a reason to believe Lessans was correct. If this is not the case, please point out where the actual case in favour of efferent vision is made.

He offered his reasons, which have everything to do with how we learn words. If the eyes were afferent, we could not be conditioned in this way. The other senses don't work this way. For example, we cannot be conditioned to liking certain foods when we don't like those foods. We can be pressured into eating food we don't like, or we can associate a food we like with something negative and then not want to eat it. But we can't actually be conditioned to liking food we don't, or to not liking food we do. The same goes for music.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-absorbed photons are dependent on the object in the sense that they do not travel independently of said object. If there's no object, then there's no absorbed light, and if there's no absorbed light, then there's no non-absorbed light.

This is demonstrably false, as any photons that are detected have no connection to the reflecting object or light source, There is simply no connection to the source. Photons travel independently and are not dependent on anything once they have been emmited or reflected, and only stop traveling when they are absorbed and stop being photons.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is exactly the crux of the problem. You're not understanding why the non-absorbed photons are not bouncing, but rather are revealing, and at the same time light energy (the full spectrum of light that makes light a neutral color) continues to travel through space and time. When light strikes an object, the absorbed light becomes separated from the non-absorbed light, but that's all it does. Once again, the misconception is that the light that allows the object to be illuminated for us to see, travels to us which would indicate a time delay.

Fucking hell, Peacegirl. What is wrong with you? I asked you specific questions above, whcih do not presuppose anything contrary to what you have said in response, yet you haven't answered them at all. Try again:

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?

[Vivisectus]

He gave his reasons, and they have to do with conditioning and the way we learn words.

No, he made some more claims, which he ALSO did not support. If he did, please point out where. His ideas about conditioning is not an argument for efferent sight.

If the eyes were afferent, we could not be conditioned in this way.

Please explain what you base this claim on.

We cannot be conditioned to liking certain foods when we don't like those foods.

Not so. Almost no person who lives below the arctic circle enjoys blubber, or raw heart. Many Inuit do - this is because they are conditioned to enjoy it. Masai people express a liking for raw beef blood. I myself enjoy Dutch salty liquorice - trust me, off all the examples, the last one is by far the most far-reaching. I will send you some if you do not believe me. I know of not a single person outside of the Netherlands who enjoys it. It is something I learned to enjoy - I was conditioned to like it.

We can be pressured into eating food we don't like, or we can associate a food we like with something negative and then not want to eat it. But we can't actually be conditioned to liking food we don't, or to not liking food we do. The same goes for music.

As I said and clearly demonstrated: there are lots of reasons to believe that is not true. One pretty good one is Hindi music - appreciated by almost no-one who is not raised on it. Or traditional Japanese music. Or Mongolian throat-singing, or Aboriginal music. Unless you are raised on it, you will not appreciate it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
The eye most-definitely does contain afferent neurons -- millions of them.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are really testing my patience Spacemonkey. I already asked you to stop playing these games about my mental illness, or else your posts will be passed over. I am asking you to kindly repeat your answer to this question, so I make sure I have it right.

Okay:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your eternally recurring question has been answered a thousand times over, and you've never once either (i) shown that you understand those answers; or (ii) shown those answers to be inadequate.

There is nothing inadequate about the answers you've been given.

There are three different points involved which you keep failing to separate:

Firstly, it is true by definition that something moved outside of your field of view will no longer be visible, because that is what 'field of view' means.

Secondly, something can be close enough to be seen, and then moved further away such that it can no longer be seen due to dispersion and resolution - the exact same explanations which you yourself appeal to for your own explanations.

Thirdly, that something cannot be seen when light from it is still arriving but the object is no longer there IS NOT ACTUALLY TRUE, so this DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXPLAINED. You would first have to establish this to be true before complaining that the afferent account cannot explain it.

And all of these points have already been explained to you a thousand times over. Each time you either agree that you cannot show our responses to be inadequate or you drop the topic. But then you FORGET. And go on to bring up the exact same question a few days or weeks later as if you had never received adequate answers before. You are not mentally competent. You need help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Didn't I already point out that it's a bad idea to demonstrate your total ignorance of visual anatomy, because it just makes you look stupid?

First of all, "nerve endings" are neurons. More precisely, nerve endings are the dendrites and/or axons of neurons.

Second, there most-definitely are afferent nerve endings in the eye that make direct contact with the [photo]receptors in the eye -- millions of them!

Since they're neurons, the rods and cones use neurotransmitters as would be expected. But unlike ordinary neurons, they don't generate an action potential. Rather, the rods and cones, and all of the integrator neurons except the final ones in the chain use electrotonic conduction, i.e. the direct flow of electric current along the membrane. Thus there is a continuous charge flow, not the all-or-nothing response seen in typical neuronal transmission.

http://www.vetmed.vt.edu/education/C...YE/CNSPROC.HTM

An action potential can also be called a nerve impulse which is known to be stimulated by an external stimuli or upon internal excitation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, he made some more claims, which he ALSO did not support. If he did, please point out where. His ideas about conditioning is not an argument for efferent sight.

Please explain what you base this claim on.

Not so. Almost no person who lives below the arctic circle enjoys blubber, or raw heart. Many Inuit do - this is because they are conditioned to enjoy it. Masai people express a liking for raw beef blood. I myself enjoy Dutch salty liquorice - trust me, off all the examples, the last one is by far the most far-reaching. I will send you some if you do not believe me. I know of not a single person outside of the Netherlands who enjoys it. It is something I learned to enjoy - I was conditioned to like it.

Of course people can acquire tastes, but this does not come from conditioning.

We can be pressured into eating food we don't like, or we can associate a food we like with something negative and then not want to eat it. But we can't actually be conditioned to liking food we don't, or to not liking food we do. The same goes for music.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As I said and clearly demonstrated: there are lots of reasons to believe that is not true. One pretty good one is Hindi music - appreciated by almost no-one who is not raised on it. Or traditional Japanese music. Or Mongolian throat-singing, or Aboriginal music. Unless you are raised on it, you will not appreciate it.

And the same goes for food. Indian children love Indian food; Israeli children love Israeli food. So obviously the taste for something has to do with exposure to that food. Tastes are acquired, but you can't make someone like something when he doesn't. For example, within the context of Indian food, there are some foods that an Indian child may not like. You cannot force him to like it by coaxing or cajoling. If he doesn't like it, he can't be conditioned to like it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think in terms of the inverse square law, you will know where they are. I've said it umpteen times that they move forward as they are replaced by new photons, but they don't bounce and travel through space and time. They join the other colors of the visual spectrum as the photons spread too far apart to create an image on the film/retina.

Peacegirl, please explain how these photons can "move forward" without traveling. Please explain this. How can you say such things and still expect people to think you are sane.

[davidm]

They move forward but they don't travel through space and time!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are really testing my patience Spacemonkey. I already asked you to stop playing these games about my mental illness, or else your posts will be passed over. I am asking you to kindly repeat your answer to this question, so I make sure I have it right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Okay:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has yet answered my question: Why are we able to get an image of someone when their physical being is in our field of view, yet we cannot get an image when their physical being steps out of view. According to the afferent model, the light bouncing off of that individual would allow us to see that person. But this never ever happens.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your eternally recurring question has been answered a thousand times over, and you've never once either (i) shown that you understand those answers; or (ii) shown those answers to be inadequate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am bringing this up again because it has not been answered to my satisfaction. Offering an inadequate explanation isn't going to get you off the hook that easily.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is nothing inadequate about the answers you've been given.

There are three different points involved which you keep failing to separate:

That's not an adequate answer.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Secondly, something can be close enough to be seen, and then moved further away such that it can no longer be seen due to dispersion and resolution - the exact same explanations which you yourself appeal to for your own explanations.

That's not an adequate answer either.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thirdly, that something cannot be seen when light from it is still arriving but the object is no longer there IS NOT ACTUALLY TRUE, so this DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXPLAINED. You would first have to establish this to be true before complaining that the afferent account cannot explain it.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to show you that there is never a time that an object (the material substance) is not in range. As soon as the object is out of range, you would imagine that the pattern of light would strike the retina. This would be conclusive proof that Lessans was wrong, but this never happens, even when the light is in a direct path. You will tell me that the inverse square law prevents us from seeing something that is out of the field of view, but this doesn't explain what it is we're seeing; light or the real object. This experiment proves that we're seeing the real object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And all of these points have already been explained to you a thousand times over. Each time you either agree that you cannot show our responses to be inadequate or you drop the topic. But then you FORGET. And go on to bring up the exact same question a few days or weeks later as if you had never received adequate answers before. You are not mentally competent. You need help.

Okay, that's it. You really like testing me, don't you? Maybe I'll give you another chance in time, but as for now, don't waste your time posting.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

The proof that is in peacegirl's pudding, which in this case is chocolate.

You referring to the euphemistic version I assume.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not an adequate answer.

Yes it is. If you think otherwise, then you have to say why.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not an adequate answer either.

Yes it is. It's also your own explanation, so it had better be adequate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to show you that there is never a time that an object (the material substance) is not in range. As soon as the object is out of range, you would imagine that the pattern of light would strike the retina. This would be conclusive proof that Lessans was wrong, but this never happens, even when the light is in a direct path. You will tell me that the inverse square law prevents us from seeing something that is out of the field of view, but this doesn't explain what it is we're seeing; light or the real object. This experiment proves that we're seeing the real object.

Until you can show that your claim that light alone cannot result in a perceived image is an actual fact rather than an invention of your own mind, you cannot reasonably say that our explanations are inadequate for not explaining it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, that's it. You really like testing me, don't you? Maybe I'll give you another chance in time, but as for now, don't waste your time posting.

That wasn't new text. I simply quoted in full the earlier post which you asked me for.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Since they're neurons, the rods and cones use neurotransmitters as would be expected. But unlike ordinary neurons, they don't generate an action potential. Rather, the rods and cones, and all of the integrator neurons except the final ones in the chain use electrotonic conduction, i.e. the direct flow of electric current along the membrane. Thus there is a continuous charge flow, not the all-or-nothing response seen in typical neuronal transmission.

http://www.vetmed.vt.edu/education/C...YE/CNSPROC.HTM

An action potential can also be called a nerve impulse which is known to be stimulated by an external stimuli or upon internal excitation.

Again, your ignorance is showing, and you're just making yourself look stupid. Once again, you've read something, completely misunderstood it, and so come to an idiotic conclusion.


The rods and cones of the eyes most-definitely do depolarize in response to stimulation by photons. And all neurons generate graded potentials -- the photoreceptors of the eye are no different. Whether or not they generate an action potential (which is "all or nothing") depends on myriad factors, such as the strength of the stimulus.

What makes the photoreceptors of the eye different from most other receptors is that they depolarize and thus stimulate the bipolar cells with which they synapse when they're not being stimulated by light. The neurotransmitters they release are inhibitory, and so the bipolar cells are not stimulated, and so no signal goes out via the optic nerve.

When a photoreceptor absorbs a photon, it hyperpolarizes and so does not release inhibitory neurotransmitters. This means that the bipolar cells with which it synapse do send signals out via the optic nerve.


Yes, photoreceptors work "backwards" compared to most other receptor cells -- they depolarize when they're not receiving a stimulus and hyperpolarize when they are stimulated. This is an adaptation which helps reduce the "visual noise" that would otherwise plague the visual system. Note that this in no way invalidates the fact that there are millions of photoreceptors which synapse with and directly activate millions of afferent neurons in the eye.


Really, this is elementary stuff -- something that if you knew anything at all about the relevant anatomy and physiology, it wouldn't be necessary to explain. More to the point, this has been explained to you already -- in some detail. But you publicly stated -- repeatedly -- that you wouldn't read it.

So you really should stop blathering about visual anatomy and physiology, you hypocrite [you're a hypocrite because you claim you're interested in learning, but actively avoid doing so -- by your own admission], because you're just making yourself look stupid.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, that's it. You really like testing me, don't you? Maybe I'll give you another chance in time, but as for now, don't waste your time posting.

Er, your bubblegum brain seems to have forgotten, again, that you don't get to tell people what to do.