A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[davidm]

I believe The Lone Ranger's explanations above were covered in the essay that he wrote -- the one that peacegirl refused to read!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The non-absorbed photons at the surface of the object cannot get replaced there by other photons unless they either cease to exist or move somewhere else. And they can't be instantly at the distant film or retina without teleporting there. They have to start at the surface of the object because that is where absorption either occurs or does not occur. So how did they get from there to the distant film or retina without either traveling or teleporting? You have no idea, do you Peacegirl? You have absolutely no idea what you are saying.

No I'm not. I'm specifically asking you about the non-absorbed photons. They hit the object and do not get absorbed. Then what? Where are they at the next moment? You don't know, do you Peacegirl? You're just making this up as you go, unaware of the fact that you are flipflopping and contradicting your own words with each alternate post. If the nonabsorbed photons still exist and do not stay there at rest or teleport anywhere else, then they have to be traveling away from the object. If they still exist and do not stay there at rest or begin traveling away from the object then they have teleported somewhere else.

So after I explain why your claim is utterly worthless, you decide an appropriate response is to repeat the worthless claim? Saying that X works just like Y is absolutely pointless if you can't explain how either X or Y works.

You haven't explained any further option. You've simply described teleportation yet again. You've said above that the nonabsorbed photons do not travel, but are instead instantly at the distant film or retina. That is teleportation, as you've been told a thousand times already.

Don't forget to flip-flop. In this post you've said that non-absorbed light does NOT travel. So in your next post you need to say that it DOES travel, so that in the post after that you'll be able to deny you ever said so and instead deny that it travels again. You really do need psychological treatment, Peacegirl. You're absolutely out to lunch.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

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.

Hubble deep field images

[naturalist.atheist]

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.

peacegirl, if I didn't know that you were seriously deranged I would think you a comedian. Ten thousand post ago after ten thousand posts before, even the stupidest person on the planet would have realized this effort of your's was a profound waste of time. Everyone else sees this as a great source of entertainment. Everyone is laughing at you. You think you are spreading the word of the great man, we see the lunatic expounding on the buffoon. Get help peacegirl.

[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.

If the nonabsorbed and replaced photons have moved forwards then they have moved through space and time. That means they have traveled. And if they've moved forwards then they obviously are not instantly at the distant retina or film. So when the blue ball first turns red, the red photons only just beginning to not be absorbed when they hit the ball will move forward towards the distant camera film as they get replaced, but they won't be at the film and therefore cannot interact with it to form a real-time red photographic image of the ball on the film. So efferent vision is again disproved and impossible given your own description with no afferent assumptions required.

[Vivisectus]

Please explain what you base this claim on.

Not being able to back up your claims seems to be a family trait.

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

Acquiring a taste IS a form of conditioning. So is the reverse, famously:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste_aversion

Taste aversion is fairly common in humans. When humans eat bad food (e.g., spoiled meat) and get sick, they may find that food aversive until extinction occurs, if ever. Also, as in nature, a food does not have to cause the sickness for it to become aversive. A human who eats sushi for the first time and who happens to come down with an unrelated stomach virus or influenza may still develop a taste aversion to sushi.

This happened to me: I got sick once, as a child, after eating beet root-and-apple salad, something I used to love. I have not been able to enjoy it since.

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.

First off: associating a food with something negative and then not wanting to eat it purely because of the association IS conditioning.

Secondly - if you test if this claim is true, you find that it is not the case.

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.

So what IS growing up with a food, if not conditioning?

And you can indeed make someone like something they initially did not. I despised brussles sprouts all my life. Could not abide them - they literally made me gag. Mrs Sectus loves them though, and because I eat them at least once a month when we cook them, I have slowly learnt to enjoy them.

You are just pulling all that out of your hat, aren't you? I mean I know you believe it - but what do you base that belief on?

[thedoc]

When I attended college a music professor related this incident. He and a friend attended one of the Rossini comic operas, and as they understood Italian, could appreciate all the humor in the opera, and were laughing out loud at it. Many of the other 'serious' people in attendence were giving them dirty looks for laughing at the very 'serious' opera. Opera was seen as an indication of sophistication and many of these other people didn't understand any of the opera but were there to be seen as upper class cultured people.

[Angakuk]

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.

If a previously visible object, upon which the non-absorbed photons are allegedly dependent, is subsequently destroyed what happens to the non-absorbed photons that were formerly associated with that object?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What he meant is that the brain does not receive, decode, or interpret images from signals sent by the optic nerve.

And he was quite right about that. The brain does not receive, decode or interpret images. The brain creates images from the signals that it receives, decodes and interprets. In the case of visual images those signals orginate with photons that strike the retina. Unless, of course, we are talking about visual hallucinations or dream images.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because he didn't use the scientific word does not discredit his claim LadyShea. Whether he was wrong in his word usage, I can admit that. He used the molecule which wasn't the right word. But this doesn't change the point he was making. He encouraged people to test his claim, and that is the only way this will ever be resolved. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

But he did use scientific words. Words like optic nerve and afferent nerve endings. He just used them incorrectly.

Also there is no baby to throw out. It is all bathwater.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The brain creates images from the signals that it receives, decodes and interprets. In the case of visual images those signals orginate with photons that strike the retina. Unless, of course, we are talking about visual hallucinations or dream images.

OK smarty-pants, just what kind of photons produce visual hallucinations and dream inages? What do those photons strike?

[LadyShea]

conditioning present participle of con·di·tion (Verb)
Verb:

Have a significant influence on or determine (the manner or outcome of something).

Train or accustom (someone or something) to behave in a certain way or to accept certain circumstances.

2. in psychology, a form of learning in which a response is elicited by a neutral stimulus which previously had been repeatedly presented in conjunction with the stimulus that originally elicited the response.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And you can indeed make someone like something they initially did not. I despised brussles sprouts all my life. Could not abide them - they literally made me gag. Mrs Sectus loves them though, and because I eat them at least once a month when we cook them, I have slowly learnt to enjoy them.

Harrumph, You had to go and tell your 'Brussles Sprouts' story before I could get mine posted. You even used my discriptive of them making me gag when I had to eat them. Have you been looking over my sholder as I type, I tried to post this yesterday but my computer went peculiar and I was going to come back today and post it, and here you are beating me to it.
Well like you I could barely get them down when I was young but I was forced to say that "I liked them but didn't care for any more". Doesn't seem like very good parenting to force a child to lie to avoid eating something disgusting. It was probably the way they were prepaired, just bioled in plain water. Several weeks ago we were at some friends for dinner and they made brussles sprouts, but they pan fried them with some dressing the I think included bacon, and they were pretty good, actually tasted more like cabbage, and we've hade them here since then. An acquired taste or conditioning, it's the same thing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If a previously visible object, upon which the non-absorbed photons are allegedly dependent, is subsequently destroyed what happens to the non-absorbed photons that were formerly associated with that object?

And what happens to those photons - now traveling along at some distance from the object they are allegedly dependent upon - if the object, instead of ceasing to exist, simply changes color? Do these photons also magically change frequency while in transit?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

OK smarty-pants, just what kind of photons produce visual hallucinations and dream inages? What do those photons strike?

Imaginary photons, of course. And they strike a false note.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Imaginary photons, of course. And they strike a false note.

Damn, first there were (N) photons, then (P) photons, (M) photons, and now (I) photons, When will it end, 'Will mankind never rest from his labors?'

[Vivisectus]

I think we need to define the principles of Lessanese Science, as we have seen that it works differently from what we tend to call science. This explains why we now have (P) light and all the other new terms, such as Lessanese Conditioning, which seems to be different from normal conditioning.

I have spotted the following principles so far. Please feel free to point out ones I missed.

1: In Lessanese science, one can never decide that a hypothesis is wrong, as the possibility of future evidence rules this out.

Thus, we must remain agnostic about everything, waiting for possible future evidence. This includes instances where evidence for the opposite is available. While we wait for this future evidence to emerge, we must assume that whatever we are awaiting evidence for is correct.

Thus, when we point a laser at the moon and time how long it takes before we can see the dot, we cannot use the fact that it takes as long as it takes the light to hit the moon and bounce back for us to be able to see it as evidence that efferent sight is incorrect: we may at a later date find evidence that suggests that the test was somehow wrong. After all, "something else may be going on".

This principle does not apply to theories that do not originate from Lessans, or that do not support his ideas: thus we can accept photographic evidence of the earths roundness as sufficient evidence to assume that earth is round, but we cannot accept the fact that we have confirmed the position of Jupiters moons by firing probes at them.

So, there is (L) evidence, (L) proof and (L) plausibility.

2: In Lessanese science, it is not necessary to make a clear case for one's hypothesis.

If you have an idea about how things work, it is sufficient to explain what it is that you feel is going on. If your theory suggests that all crime is caused by the presence of the colour blue, then you can simply say that you have observed that this is so, and consider that you have a convincing argument. You are not obliged to explain what you observed, how you observed it, the methodology used, how you defined things, or anything of the kind. In fact, your very explaining THAT it is the colour blue that causes crime is considered a demonstration of the fact that it is so: the hypothesis counts as evidence for itself.

This does not apply to ideas that do not originate from Lessans, but occasionally it may be applied to theories that support his ideas.

So we also have (L) demonstration: an description of something that counts as evidence for its own correctness.

3: In Lessanese science, Ideas trump Actualities.

If you have a theory that states that the bones of elephants are made out of rubber, despite the fact that everyone always thought otherwise, then it is not necessary to either consult anyone who has ever performed an autopsy on one or to go and check for yourself.

Should you accidentally stumble across an inconvenient fact despite this, then just pretend you meant something else. This in no way reflects badly on your theory.

This principle does not apply to anything that does not originate from Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not being able to back up your claims seems to be a family trait.

Acquiring a taste IS a form of conditioning. So is the reverse, famously:

Taste aversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This happened to me: I got sick once, as a child, after eating beet root-and-apple salad, something I used to love. I have not been able to enjoy it since.

I understand that. My ex-husband use to love rice but after the army (when that's all they offered as a side dish), he couldn't stand the sight of 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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

First off: associating a food with something negative and then not wanting to eat it purely because of the association IS conditioning.

But I'm not talking about a bad experience. I'm talking about someone telling you that a certain food is delicious. No matter how many times they say this, if you don't like it, you cannot become conditioned to like it just by hearing the word "delicious" because others like it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Secondly - if you test if this claim is true, you find that it is not the case.

But that's not the claim.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So what IS growing up with a food, if not conditioning?

In the sense that it's what you're exposed to, people acquire tastes for certain things as a result. But I'm not talking about this type of conditioning. If a child doesn't like the taste of a certain food not because of a bad association, but he just doesn't like it, no one can talk him into liking it intrinsically. Yes, they can reward him for eating it, but that's not what I mean. I am talking about changing what he doesn't like to now liking it due to what someone else says is good.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And you can indeed make someone like something they initially did not. I despised brussles sprouts all my life. Could not abide them - they literally made me gag. Mrs Sectus loves them though, and because I eat them at least once a month when we cook them, I have slowly learnt to enjoy them.

Again, that's not what I'm talking about. One day I got a yearning for raw clams when my father took me to a bullroast. Never did I have a desire to eat this food. We all acquire different tastes for things as we get older, but this comes from something internal, not external.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

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

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.

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

Fair enough, but don't test me Spacemonkey or I will not engage with you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

All I'm saying is that if it turns out that the brain, in fact, looks through the eyes as a window, then he would still be correct to say that the eyes are not a sense organ. You are saying that due to afferent fibers and the general physiology of the eye, that the mechanism for how we see has been conclusively established. I disagree with your conclusion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not interjecting any ideas from the afferent model. Apparently you've repeated this lie so many times it's actually become a part of your delusion. THERE IS NO AFFERENT ASSUMPTION HERE. 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.

When light strikes an object, the full spectrum divides depending on what light is absorbed and what light is not. When something is removed (the absorbed photons), we see the remainder of what is left. Seeing what is left over does not mean that what is left over has to do anything. That is why, although these photons are replaced which means they continue to move forward, they do not bounce off of the object and travel through space and time as white light does. When I say you are coming from the afferent position, that's what I'm talking about. You are not thinking in terms of efferent vision at all.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

We see instantly. Once again, when the eyes are looking at the object (the material substance), the light that is at the eye is not the actual distance that you're computing, which is based on the actual distance it takes for the light to reach Earth. It's there instantly because there is virtually no distance when the brain is looking through the eyes at the actual object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

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

I'm not answering these questions because they don't apply in the efferent model.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fair enough, but don't test me Spacemonkey or I will not engage with you.

Do you really expect me to pretend that I think you're sane? Note also that you have not replied to the actual content of my above post. Or answered any of the many other questions I've asked you in recent posts. In particular I'd like to know how you can have unabsorbed light "moving forward" without traveling, or instantly at the distant film or retina if it is moving forward from the object at a finite speed. How does that work, Peacegirl? Do you have any idea?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think we need to define the principles of Lessanese Science, as we have seen that it works differently from what we tend to call science. This explains why we now have (P) light and all the other new terms, such as Lessanese Conditioning, which seems to be different from normal conditioning.

I have spotted the following principles so far. Please feel free to point out ones I missed.

1: In Lessanese science, one can never decide that a hypothesis is wrong, as the possibility of future evidence rules this out.

Thus, we must remain agnostic about everything, waiting for possible future evidence. This includes instances where evidence for the opposite is available. While we wait for this future evidence to emerge, we must assume that whatever we are awaiting evidence for is correct.

Thus, when we point a laser at the moon and time how long it takes before we can see the dot, we cannot use the fact that it takes as long as it takes the light to hit the moon and bounce back for us to be able to see it as evidence that efferent sight is incorrect: we may at a later date find evidence that suggests that the test was somehow wrong. After all, "something else may be going on".

This principle does not apply to theories that do not originate from Lessans, or that do not support his ideas: thus we can accept photographic evidence of the earths roundness as sufficient evidence to assume that earth is round, but we cannot accept the fact that we have confirmed the position of Jupiters moons by firing probes at them.

So, there is (L) evidence, (L) proof and (L) plausibility.

2: In Lessanese science, it is not necessary to make a clear case for one's hypothesis.

If you have an idea about how things work, it is sufficient to explain what it is that you feel is going on. If your theory suggests that all crime is caused by the presence of the colour blue, then you can simply say that you have observed that this is so, and consider that you have a convincing argument. You are not obliged to explain what you observed, how you observed it, the methodology used, how you defined things, or anything of the kind. In fact, your very explaining THAT it is the colour blue that causes crime is considered a demonstration of the fact that it is so: the hypothesis counts as evidence for itself.

This does not apply to ideas that do not originate from Lessans, but occasionally it may be applied to theories that support his ideas.

So we also have (L) demonstration: an description of something that counts as evidence for its own correctness.

3: In Lessanese science, Ideas trump Actualities.

If you have a theory that states that the bones of elephants are made out of rubber, despite the fact that everyone always thought otherwise, then it is not necessary to either consult anyone who has ever performed an autopsy on one or to go and check for yourself.

Should you accidentally stumble across an inconvenient fact despite this, then just pretend you meant something else. This in no way reflects badly on your theory.

This principle does not apply to anything that does not originate from Lessans.

OH Great! Now you're going to propose (L) photons, ARRRRRRRRRG!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When light strikes an object, the full spectrum divides depending on what light is absorbed and what light is not. When something is removed (the absorbed photons), we see the remainder of what is left. Seeing what is left over does not mean that what is left over has to do anything.

Of course it does. It has to get to the film if it is going to interact with it, and it can't get there instantly without teleporting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why, although these photons are replaced which means they continue to move forward, they do not bounce off of the object and travel through space and time as white light does.

What distinction do you think you are making here? We are talking about light that has traveled towards the object and hit it. If at the next moment it is "moving forwards" (i.e. away from the object) then it has bounced off it and is traveling away. There is no difference between what you are asserting and what you are rejecting. (Also, white light doesn't bounce off and travel away, because some of the light has been absorbed, meaning what is left is no longer white light.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I say you are coming from the afferent position, that's what I'm talking about. You are not thinking in terms of efferent vision at all.

What specifically have I assumed that is not a part of efferent vision?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see instantly. Once again, when the eyes are looking at the object (the material substance), the light that is at the eye is not the actual distance that you're computing, which is based on the actual distance it takes for the light to reach Earth. It's there instantly because there is virtually no distance when the brain is looking through the eyes at the actual object.

There are no eyes in the scenario I am asking you about. The distance between the object and the camera is actual and non-zero. If any light is covering that distance instantly then it is teleporting.

But none of what you have said above has anything to do with what I asked. I wanted to know the location of the nonabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object. You have previously made two inconsistent claims on this point. You've said both that (i) they have moved forwards as they are replaced (which if they are moving at light speed would mean that they should be about 30 meters away from the object); and (ii) they are instantly at the camera film (meaning they have teleported across the non-zero actual distance between the object and the camera).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

I'm not answering these questions because they don't apply in the efferent model.

Be specific. Why do these questions allegedly not apply in the efferent model?

Are there no non-absorbed photons when light hits an object? Or do they no longer exist 0.0001sec after that? Or do they then exist without having any actual location?

Are there no photons at the camera when the photograph is taken? Or did those photons not exist 0.0001sec before that? Or did they exist then without having any actual location?

[LadyShea]

if it turns out that the brain, in fact, looks through the eyes as a window, then he would still be correct to say that the eyes are not a sense organ.

If he was correct he was correct, yes, that is tautologically true and totally meaningless.

You are saying that due to afferent fibers and the general physiology of the eye, that the mechanism for how we see has been conclusively established.

No, he is saying that your and Lessans statements and claims regarding the anatomy and physiology of the visual system were false.