A revolution in thought - Page 835

peacegirl · #**20851** 10-27-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

He said there is no direct contact with an afferent nerve ending

What do you think a neuron is?

Photoreceptors are nerves. Light directly contacts these afferent nerves.

It's interesting to note that with the other senses, there is a slight delay before the signal reaches the brain for interpretation. With sight, it works differently. That's why it takes time for the sound of a plane to reach us before we actually see the plane since it hasn't entered our field of view.

What are you talking about?

Sound is interpreted from differences in pressure as they hit the receptors in the ear. Sound travels slower than light travels. That is why you can often see something before you can hear it. The light travels many times faster than the sound.

That's not even what I said. I said that we can often hear the sound of a plane before we see see it, even when the plane is in our direct visual field with no obstructions.

You said there was a delay in sound and that it "takes time for the sound" to reach us but that sight works differently. And used "that's why" as if it explained something in response to my post.

What exactly was your point? How is your point relevant to question asked?

Sound is interpreted from differences in pressure as they hit the receptors in the ear. Light allows us to see objects in the real world which only occurs when the plane is within our field of view. That's why we often hear airplanes before we can see them.

peacegirl · #**20852** 10-27-2012, 06:18 PM

Quote:

It is not gobbledygook. You're trying to make it look that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is, and you yourself provide the proof of that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"Visual field" needs to be defined before it become meaningful, and all the definition you give it is "When it is visible"... so what you are really saying there is "We should see the plane before we see it", which is complete nonsense.

I never said that.

Quote:

Why is it nonsense? In photography they use the term "visual field" or "field of view".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes indeed - but that is not how you use it. It would be great if you could! But you don't. You use it to describe distance as well as the amount of degrees left and right from dead centre that we capture through a lens. That is why the field of view is given in degrees... not as a measure of distance.

So change the word. Is visual range okay? You are harping on the word, as if this changes the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To determine how far out an object can still trigger a single receptor - in some cases, the smallest object that can be seen - is determined by how many receptors are covering what kind of field of view. For instance, if we have a very wide field of view - say, when we are using a lens with a focal length of 30 mils, we can not see the detail of the masonry on a building that is a hundred yards away. If, however, we use a 300 mil lens, we can! We take a smaller field of view, and project this smaller area on to the same number of receptors as before.

I have no problem with this explanation, but it doesn't change the concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You use "field of view" as not just to denote how much to the left, right, top and bottom of dead centre we can see, but as something that also shows distance.

If you don't like the word because it doesn't agree with your understanding of the word, I'm okay with changing it. What word would you like to use instead?

Quote:

That's true because the light is traveling faster than sound. But I'm not talking about light, I'm talking about objects. The reason I brought up the airplane is because it doesn't always follow in that order (sight first, sound second). We sometimes hear an airplane before we see it, even though there are no obstructions or haze blocking our view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We always do - if we are looking at the right spot. Every time.

There is no right spot if the airplane is heard, but is nowhere to be seen because it has not entered our visual range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I am glad to see you are now saying that we would see light from an object limited by the speed of light, but we see the object instantly. If this is the case, how come we do not see light being reflected off planets somewhere different from where we see the planets themselves?

I never said that we see light being reflected off planets somewhere different from where we see the planets themselves. We would see the planet, but it would be smaller depending on how far away or how close it was to us. This distance would then reflect the amount of light striking our photoreceptors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also - how come cameras do not see something else than the eyes? There is nothing in a camera that looks out?

They don't see something else than the eyes because a camera is using the same light that the eyes are seeing. The only difference is that we are seeing a mirror image on the film, whereas the eyes see the actual object in real time.

peacegirl · #**20853** 10-27-2012, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said there were no similar afferent nerve endings.

Yes, and that is the claim he was flat wrong about. There are afferent nerve endings in the eye. Yet whenever pressed on this you change the topic to defend a different claim about vision. You know Lessans was wrong in his above claim, yet you will continue to weasel instead of admitting it.

He didn't say that. He said:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have made astute observations and I hear a passenger airplane before I see it coming into view. I don't know what planet you're on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You will hear the plane first if you are not looking in the right direction, if you have particularly poor eyesight, or if the aircraft is occluded by cloud. Otherwise we all can and do see the aircraft before we hear it. But as always, you see no problem with merely inventing your own facts whenever pressed, and to then weasel whenever reality disagrees.

So maybe that wasn't a good example. The point I was making is that the airplane must be within one's visual range for the reflected light to strike the photoreceptors.

Noun 1. visual range - distance at which a given standard object can be seen with the unaided eye

visual range - definition of visual range by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

peacegirl · #**20854** 10-27-2012, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Define by chance and explain why "God" can be here by chance but our world cannot be here by chance.

God, to me, is just another word for the invariable laws that govern our universe. I don't think this world is here by chance. I made an off-the-cuff comment and I don't need to go off onto a tangent defending my view of God.

specious_reasons · #**20855** 10-27-2012, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that is not what I said. I said that scientists don't know everything, so that should give you pause before jumping to premature conclusions that Lessans is wrong.

Scientists don't know everything, but they've pretty conclusively shown that Lessans is wrong.

Seriously, when are you going to find that one scientist that agrees with this statement?

Quote:

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.

Yes.

This reply doesn't make sense - you found a scientists to endorse Lessans' claim?

Spacemonkey · #**20856** 10-27-2012, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not evade these questions. I don't think they are useful. If an object is within the camera's field of view, and the camera is taking a snapshot of the actual object due to light's presence, that means that the photons that come first and second have absolutely nothing to do with this model of sight. You are getting confused due to the belief that the photons are traveling, striking the film, and a delayed image formed. That is not how I believe it works based on Lessans' observations.

You just evaded them again, you ridiculous and contemptible weasel. If you can't explain how real-time photography could possibly work, then efferent vision is and remains impossible. What causes the image to be formed on the film, if not the photons that strike it?

Spacemonkey · #**20857** 10-27-2012, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say that. He said:

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.

And that's what he was dead wrong about. There are similar afferent nerve endings in the eye. You know this. You know Lessans was wrong in this claim, so you keep trying to reinterpret what he said into something possibly not wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So maybe that wasn't a good example. The point I was making is that the airplane must be within one's visual range for the reflected light to strike the photoreceptors.

That is an empty tautology saying only that we must be able to see something in order to see it. And that wasn't your claim. Your claim was that we can typically hear airplanes before we can see them. You made that up, and it simply isn't true. So again, you are weaseling by trying to change your claim into something a little less stupid.

peacegirl · #**20858** 10-27-2012, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In the meantime, we still don't know about these mysterious reasons that he had for thinking the eye works like that in the first place. All he mentions in the book is dog sight and infant sight - not nearly enough to jump to such a conclusion.

Why did he assume it?

Quote:

Those examples were just that. He did not look at dog sight and infant sight and come to a conclusion.

Too much like empirical evidence for his taste huh?

Quote:

He made his observations based on seeing how we become conditioned by words that have made people inferior productions of the human race due to their physiognomies.

Look, you are doing it again. You are using words you do not really understand, and it turns everything into a dreadful jumble.

And what words would that be?

Quote:

His observations

: an observation can be either a remark, or it can be something someone observed. The first can be just about anything: I can make the observation to you that I thought yesterdays meatloaf was particularly fine. The second one requires something to observe: they are always observations of physical things.

Quote:

He made his observations based on seeing how we become conditioned by words

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is an impossibility. You can see behaviours, or other physical phenomena. You cannot directly observe conditioning, as it is a psychological phenomenon. You can observe behaviour and then raise the hypothesis that conditioning occurs. You would have to test that hypothesis before you go on, thought.

I never said he observed psychological phenomenon directly, but he did observe the behaviors that lead to certain psychological phenomenon. This was not a hypothesis. You are trying so hard to discount his findings because he didn't test it empirically.

Quote:

He saw how this conditioning occurs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To do this you would quite literally need to be a mind-reader. It cannot be done. What you can do is observe behaviour, especially if in this case you observed a lot of developing infants, and then see if the data you have collected matches your hypothesis that this is what occurs.

He needed to understand how words and language cause this conditioning, and that's what he did.

Quote:

Descriptors are projected onto people with certain facial structures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So the two of you claim. I see no evidence to suggest it is true. Worse: I do not even see any reason to assume it is plausible. All I see is your claim that it is so.

That's because you don't understand his demonstration as to how the brain operates in relation to words. Do you even remember what his observations were? No wonder you don't see it.

Quote:

A child keeps hearing positive or negative inflections when that person is identified. This process begins at a very early age and it occurs over and over again, so by the time a child is 4 or 5 (or maybe even younger), he can see, with his very eyes, the difference between an "ugly" individual or a "pretty" individual. The truth is people ae not ugly or beautiful, just different, and these words which have hurt so many are going to become obsolete out of necessity. Why would anyone want to use words that not only are inaccurate symbols, but hurt so many of our youth because they don't feel they measure up? In the new world these words will never be used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All of this is a repetition of the same claim. All you have done is repeated what it is you believe. I know perfectly well what it is you believe: I just pointed out that I cannot for the life of me spot any reason to believe it is true!

Then you'll have to wait for the empirical testing to prove that it's true. Without hearing these words, children will not be conditioned to seeing one group as beautiful and another as ugly. That doesn't mean there won't be personal preferences, but these preferences won't become a standard for everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is the problem with the book. At no point did he feel any need to fact-check, test, prove, or support his ideas. He can either have been ignorant of the fact that in any even remotely scientific work, this is an absolute requirement, or he can have simply felt that there was no need for it, and that his self-proclaimed authority as a genius should be enough.

Oh my god, that is exactly what he was up against; people who thought they were the authorities not because of what they knew but because of their rank.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Tell me - if you were asked to change the entire organisation of your countries society, would you be happy to do so on the say-so of someone, just because that person assures you he is a grade-a brainbox and has spent a lot of time on his system? That would just be silly, right? The guy could be dead wrong.

He isn't telling anyone to change anything other than the need to destroy the weapons of mass destruction and become a citizen of this new world (if they want to), which would allow everyone to be guaranteed that their standard of living would never go down. This transition doesn't hurt a single hair on anyone's head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet that is exactly what your father expected the US to do. He even tried to sue the president to get this done. Despite the fact that the key part of this book - the assumption that conscience works the way he says it does - is completely unsupported.

Conscience works exactly like he described. What else is conscience for but to determine whether our actions can be justified when it comes to hurting someone. If we can justify it, our conscience will permit the action. If we can't justify it, our conscience won't let us permit the action.

Spacemonkey · #**20859** 10-27-2012, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Every single circumstance means that there should be no exceptions if the eyes are a sense organ.

Which is what makes your claim utterly and mind-bogglingly stupid. You are saying that if afferent vision is true, then we should always and without exception see planes before we hear them... even if we have poor vision, are looking in the wrong direction, or if the airplane is occluded by clouds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there are exceptions, and they are very obvious to the astute observer. The plane is too small to be resolved indicates that the plane is out of visual range. Due to its small size, the image won't show up on our retinas. If we use a telescope, we can see it because it magnifies its size to where its within our field of view and therefore it does show up on our retinas.

Yes, this is the resolution explanation. It is the explanation provided by AFFERENT VISION and which works and makes sense for AFFERENT VISION only. It is an explanation that relies upon the dispersion of traveling light. It is NOT an explanation that makes any sense at all on the hypothesis of efferent vision. It is also something you clearly do not understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Use whatever term you want, the fact remains that light should be traveling over long distances to reach our eye in nano-seconds, but this doesn't occur.

Yes it does. You are making shit up again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the plane is too far away (out of our visual field) or the light the plane is reflecting is too dim from where we are, we won't see it because the conditions that would allow us to see it are not present.

Well, duh! Who's disagreeing with that? Obviously things that cannot be seen will not be seen. Your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it actually doesn't work perfectly under regular afferent vision.

Oh really? Do go on. Explain why the resolution/dispersion explanation does not work for afferent vision. Please also explain how it allegedly does work for efferent vision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These are not invented facts.

Of course they are. You blatantly invented your claim that we typically can hear airplanes before we can see them. That was grade A invented ignorant bullshit.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**20860** 10-27-2012, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not a lie. I answer your questions.

It was a lie. I showed it to be a lie by quoting you evading my questions instead of answering them. You have evaded them again in this post. Therefore you lied when you said you never do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never purposely ignore your questions unless you start frustrating me by your better than thou attitude, which I'm starting to feel.

IOW, you never ignore questions... except for when you do. If you purposefully ignore questions when you are feeling frustrated, then it is a lie to claim that you never do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Question #1: What support did Lessans provide for your claim that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification?

[Weasel #1:] That's because you have no clue as to what the two-sided equation is even about, yet you tell me you now more about this discovery than me, when I've been privy to it my entire life.

[Weasel #2:]He was so clear in the book as to why this occurs under conditions of a no blame environment, and why we can't justify striking a first blow under these same conditions, that you either didn't read it, or you don't understand his demonstration.

Where am I evading anything? You do not understand the two-sided equation whatsoever, yet you think you do. This poses a real stumbling block.

Where are you evading anything? See above! Neither of your above responses to the question actually provide any kind of answer to it. Your first quoted response was an evasion. Your new response above is also an evasion. Telling me that I am lost or don't understand is a weaseling evasion. Telling me that it is clear in the book is a weaseling evasion. Anything that does not consist of providing actual support from Lessans for your claim (that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification) is a weaseling evasion. And claiming that we will be unable to justify harm is not the same as showing that we will be unable to harm without a justification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Question #2:Question #2: How could it be that NASA successfully uses delayed-time vision to calculate trajectories, when if Lessans were right about real-time seeing, they should then miss by thousands of miles?

[Weasel #1:] I already said that I'm not getting into this because it is fueling the rage that is being directed at me. This is not airtight by any means, as far as I'm concerned. Only further testing will determine who is right.

[Weasel #2:] Maybe in their calculations there was a correction made. I really don't know, but this is not how this knowledge is going to be confirmed. If this claim is confirmed valid, then we have to go back to the drawing board to understand what is really going on, and why the trajectories are on target.

This is not a weasel. I am evading nothing. Empirical testing will be the ultimate judge of who is right.

Again, both of these responses are weaseling evasions. Neither of them answer the question by explaining how it could be that NASA does not miss while using delayed vision calculations, if vision is real-time. Explaining why you are not answering the question is simply explaining why you are evading it. Appealing to a need for further empirical testing is a weaseling evasion. It does not answer the question. And no correction is made. You have even been shown the calculations. So this is another weaseling evasion. The only legitimate part of your reply is where you admit that you don't really know how it is possible for Lessans to still be right. But of course, you are still certain that he is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Before I ever give you an apology, you are you going to have to get down on your hands and knees and ask for forgiveness for calling me insane, mentally ill, and all the other crazy nutty things you have called me and accused me of in the space of a very short time.

I'm not going to apologize for telling you that you are mentally ill. You are. I am not using this as an insult. I am seriously concerned about your mental health, as are most of your audience here. My conclusion concerning your mental state is one based upon the evidence of your posts. When I say that you are crazy, I can support this by showing where you have said or done crazy things. Whereas you asserted that I had contradicted myself when I had not (merely because I have not agreed with your unsupported claim that compatibilism is wrong), and still refuse to retract the accusation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as your false indignation over my comment, explain to me how then can you reconcile the two opposite sides that compatibilists try to reconcile without it being a complete and utter contradiction? Are you saying that we don't have free will, or that we do have free will? And if you think we have both, show me how this works in a compatabilist framework.

Like I already told you, I already did explain this. But I'll be happy to explain it to you again just as soon as you retract and apologize for your lies and false accusations. You were wrong to say that I had contradicted myself. You were wrong to say that I had claimed that we both have and do not have free will. And you are blatantly lying every time you claim that you never weasel or evade anything.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**20861** 10-27-2012, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here is that question concerning conscience again which you have yet to answer with anything but weaseling evasion:

What support did Lessans provide for your claim that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification?

If you'd rather discuss efferent vision (despite previously insisting that you would not be returning to this topic), then here are some questions on that topic for you to answer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need to answer these questions without contradicting yourself, otherwise real-time photography and efferent vision remains impossible:

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

5. How did the light already present at the camera get to be there, i.e. where did it come from?

6. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

7. Can light travel faster than light?

8. Is wavelength a property of light?

9. Can light travel without any wavelength?

10. Can wavelengths travel independently of light?

11. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

12. What does a reflection consist of?

13. What does light consist of?

14. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?

15. What happens to any light striking the surface of an object which does not get absorbed, after it strikes that object?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why does efferent vision still have no answers to the following simple questions?

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

Show us all again how you never ignore or evade questions, Peacegirl.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**20862** 10-27-2012, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Conscience works exactly like he described.

Unsupported assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What else is conscience for but to determine whether our actions can be justified when it comes to hurting someone. If we can justify it, our conscience will permit the action. If we can't justify it, our conscience won't let us permit the action.

Kindergarten level psychology. What makes you think conscience will always be strong enough to perform this function under his changed conditions? What support do you have for the claim that it will then be impossible to harm others without a justification?

Weasel in 3... 2... 1...

Spacemonkey · #**20863** 10-27-2012, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sound is interpreted from differences in pressure as they hit the receptors in the ear. Light allows us to see objects in the real world which only occurs when the plane is within our field of view. That's why we often hear airplanes before we can see them.

It is not true that we often hear airplanes before we can see them.

peacegirl · #**20864** 10-27-2012, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say that. He said:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And that's what he was dead wrong about. There are similar afferent nerve endings in the eye. You know this. You know Lessans was wrong in this claim, so you keep trying to reinterpret what he said into something possibly not wrong.

I'm not trying to reinterpret. I cut and pasted what he wrote so there would no confusion. I'm sorry but I don't think the eyes work in the exact same way as the other senses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So maybe that wasn't a good example. The point I was making is that the airplane must be within one's visual range for the reflected light to strike the photoreceptors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That is an empty tautology saying only that we must be able to see something in order to see it.

No, I said that the actual object must be in range for the image to be resolved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And that wasn't your claim. Your claim was that we can typically hear airplanes before we can see them. You made that up, and it simply isn't true. So again, you are weaseling by trying to change your claim into something a little less stupid.

I hear airplanes before I see them. Maybe I'm not looking in the right direction, or maybe there is an overcast. I'll have to test this and I'll let you know my results.

peacegirl · #**20865** 10-27-2012, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Conscience works exactly like he described.

Unsupported assertion.

It is supported. Your stubborn resistance is going to ruin it for you, seriously. When I'm no longer here, you'll forget about this book and you'll never find another like it. You'll be searching for answers when the answers were right in front of you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What else is conscience for but to determine whether our actions can be justified when it comes to hurting someone. If we can justify it, our conscience will permit the action. If we can't justify it, our conscience won't let us permit the action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Kindergarten level psychology. What makes you think conscience will always be strong enough to perform this function under his changed conditions? What support do you have for the claim that it will then be impossible to harm others without a justification?

Weasel in 3... 2... 1...

If he is correct that we must have a justification to harm others, and when all justification to harm others has been removed (and he explains what those justifications are), then it follows that it will be impossible for anyone to DESIRE hurting others because they won't have the necessary justification in which to follow through with their contemplated actions.

peacegirl · #**20866** 10-27-2012, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sound is interpreted from differences in pressure as they hit the receptors in the ear. Sound travels slower than light travels. That is why you can often see something before you can hear it. The light travels many times faster than the sound.

So if that's true then why can't we see an airplane before we hear the sound? Explain this to me LadyShea without weaseling as you are constantly accusing me of doing.

We can absolutely see a plane before we hear the sound if we are looking at the planes flight path at the moment it comes into view. If you know where and when to look, you will see it first, every time.

If we aren't looking at the sky or don't know exactly where to look, we would probably hear the sound first.

That is not true LadyShea. We hear planes before we ever see them, even if we know where to look. You are wrong.

You are wrong, not me. Demonstrably wrong. I spent my summers near the Naval weapons testing center and saw jets every day, I grew up outside the Air Force Academy and so have seen the Thunderbirds many times, lived in the flight path of one of the busiest airports in the world for over a decade, and have seen the Blue Angels fly as well. Planes can even fly faster than sound travels, so even without the speed of light being the factor it is, you could easily see them before you hear them in many circumstances.

If the plane is reflecting light, we should see airplanes at far distances before we ever hear them in every single circumstance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sometimes they are already past you and out of your range of vision before you hear them. Sometimes you can hear them but they are too far away because of high altitude to see them.

Isn't that the point I'm making? If light is traveling so fast, altitude wouldn't even be a factor. The light would be traveling so fast that it would strike our eyes before the sound strikes our ears, but this is not what occurs. The reason we hear the airplane and don't see it is because the airplane is too far away, or is out of our visual range because it's too small to be seen at that distance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Some sounds can be heard from further away than we can see the source of the sound (a loud owl), or the source of the sound is obstructed or too small to to see, so there are circumstances where we hear but don't see.

I'm not talking about obstructions where it's obvious that we wouldn't be able to see the source. I'm talking about a clear path to our eyes, and we still hear the sound before we see where the source of the sound is coming from.

So you have reset all the way back to not understanding what resolution is.

Goddamn, don't you get tired of making the same stupid mistake over and over and sounding like a moron?

If a plane is too far away for our eyes to resolve the image, we can't see it....remember? Resolution has nothing to do with the speed of light. Sometimes we cannot see the plane because it is too far away to resolve (altitude is distance too, you know).

Okay, so? That supports Lessans. We don't see the plane because it's too distant and the reflected light cannot be resolved, therefore we can't see the plane. I never said we don't need light to see; I just said that we also need the object to be within our field of view to see.

Spacemonkey · #**20867** 10-27-2012, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not trying to reinterpret. I cut and pasted what he wrote so there would no confusion. I'm sorry but I don't think the eyes work in the exact same way as the other senses.

You just proved my point again. What you cut and pasted was his claim that there are no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye. That is wrong. So you are trying to reinterpret it as a a claim that the eyes do not work in the exact same way as the other senses. That is not the claim you just quoted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I said that the actual object must be in range for the image to be resolved.

And visual range is defined as the range at which we can see something. So your point remains the empty tautology that we only see things when we can see them. This has been explained to you literally hundreds of times now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hear airplanes before I see them. Maybe I'm not looking in the right direction, or maybe there is an overcast. I'll have to test this and I'll let you know my results.

So stop inventing made up facts for us to explain.

Spacemonkey · #**20868** 10-27-2012, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Conscience works exactly like he described.

Unsupported assertion.

It is supported...

No, it isn't. You have never offered so much as a shred of support for this claim. Not once. Therefore it remains unsupported.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What else is conscience for but to determine whether our actions can be justified when it comes to hurting someone. If we can justify it, our conscience will permit the action. If we can't justify it, our conscience won't let us permit the action.

Kindergarten level psychology. What makes you think conscience will always be strong enough to perform this function under his changed conditions? What support do you have for the claim that it will then be impossible to harm others without a justification?

Weasel in 3... 2... 1...

If he is correct that we must have a justification to harm others...

Learn to read, Peacegirl. I asked you what makes you think a justification will always be required, and you have started your answer with the conditional assumption that this is the case. So the question you answered is not the question I asked. Try again: What makes you think conscience will always be strong enough to perform this function under his changed conditions? What support do you have for the claim that it will then be impossible to harm others without a justification?

Spacemonkey · #**20869** 10-27-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, so? That supports Lessans. We don't see the plane because it's too distant and the reflected light cannot be resolved, therefore we can't see the plane. I never said we don't need light to see; I just said that we also need the object to be within our field of view to see.

No, it does not support Lessans. You are appealing to an explanation based on resolution, which (i) is the same explanation which offered by afferent vision, meaning efferent vision does not explain anything here that is not already explained by current theory; and which (ii) is an explanation relying upon the dispersion of traveling light, meaning it is an explanation that is only available for afferent (and not for efferent) vision. I pointed this out before, and you have evaded the post twice already.

Vivisectus · #**20870** 10-27-2012, 11:09 PM

[quote=peacegirl;1092338]

Quote:

It is not gobbledygook. You're trying to make it look that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is, and you yourself provide the proof of that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"Visual field" needs to be defined before it become meaningful, and all the definition you give it is "When it is visible"... so what you are really saying there is "We should see the plane before we see it", which is complete nonsense.

I never said that.

No, you are mixing up quotes. It looks like a very feeble attempt to deliberately confuse things too. Ah well.

Quote:

Why is it nonsense? In photography they use the term "visual field" or "field of view".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes indeed - but that is not how you use it. It would be great if you could! But you don't. You use it to describe distance as well as the amount of degrees left and right from dead centre that we capture through a lens. That is why the field of view is given in degrees... not as a measure of distance.

So change the word. Is visual range okay? You are harping on the word, as if this changes the facts.

These words are important if you want to be understood! Field of view is OK when you want to talk about the direction someone is looking in. Range is ok if you are talking about distance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To determine how far out an object can still trigger a single receptor - in some cases, the smallest object that can be seen - is determined by how many receptors are covering what kind of field of view. For instance, if we have a very wide field of view - say, when we are using a lens with a focal length of 30 mils, we can not see the detail of the masonry on a building that is a hundred yards away. If, however, we use a 300 mil lens, we can! We take a smaller field of view, and project this smaller area on to the same number of receptors as before.

I have no problem with this explanation, but it doesn't change the concept.

You know, it rather does? Because all of this is only relevant if the information that ends up in the image comes from the light alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You use "field of view" as not just to denote how much to the left, right, top and bottom of dead centre we can see, but as something that also shows distance.

If you don't like the word because it doesn't agree with your understanding of the word, I'm okay with changing it. What word would you like to use instead?

"field" for direction. "range" for distance. Please. For clarity's sake.

Quote:

That's true because the light is traveling faster than sound. But I'm not talking about light, I'm talking about objects. The reason I brought up the airplane is because it doesn't always follow in that order (sight first, sound second). We sometimes hear an airplane before we see it, even though there are no obstructions or haze blocking our view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We always do - if we are looking at the right spot. Every time.

There is no right spot if the airplane is heard, but is nowhere to be seen because it has not entered our visual range.

I don't think that ever happens... except when there is some kind of obstruction. We can see an airplane from way farther out than the sound even reaches.

What determines what is in visual range in efferent vision? I can explain why something is or isn't in normal vision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I am glad to see you are now saying that we would see light from an object limited by the speed of light, but we see the object instantly. If this is the case, how come we do not see light being reflected off planets somewhere different from where we see the planets themselves?

I never said that we see light being reflected off planets somewhere different from where we see the planets themselves. We would see the planet, but it would be smaller depending on how far away or how close it was to us. This distance would then reflect the amount of light striking our photoreceptors.

That does not make any sense. Light coming from that planet would be delayed, because the speed of light is finite. The image would arrive instantly, and be positioned where the object is now, not where is was... which is where the light would be coming from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also - how come cameras do not see something else than the eyes? There is nothing in a camera that looks out?

They don't see something else than the eyes because a camera is using the same light that the eyes are seeing. The only difference is that we are seeing a mirror image on the film, whereas the eyes see the actual object in real time.

Ermmm... what? The eyes, in your theory, do not "see" the light. They merely require it as a condition. And what do you mean that we are seeing a "mirror image" on the film? The film (or sensor) merely records what light it detects...

You are not making any sense here.

Vivisectus · #**20871** 10-27-2012, 11:37 PM

Quote:

I never said he observed psychological phenomenon directly, but he did observe the behaviors that lead to certain psychological phenomenon. This was not a hypothesis. You are trying so hard to discount his findings because he didn't test it empirically.

Yes you did: you said he observed how people are conditioned. You may not have realized you said it because you were not aware of what you were trying to talk about, but you said it nonetheless.

Quote:

He saw how this conditioning occurs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To do this you would quite literally need to be a mind-reader. It cannot be done. What you can do is observe behaviour, especially if in this case you observed a lot of developing infants, and then see if the data you have collected matches your hypothesis that this is what occurs.

He needed to understand how words and language cause this conditioning, and that's what he did.

...and you believe that because...?

Quote:

Descriptors are projected onto people with certain facial structures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So the two of you claim. I see no evidence to suggest it is true. Worse: I do not even see any reason to assume it is plausible. All I see is your claim that it is so.

That's because you don't understand his demonstration as to how the brain operates in relation to words. Do you even remember what his observations were? No wonder you don't see it.

Please provide me with said reason to think it is plausible, or retract. Or, as you seem to prefer, just accept a reputation for intellectual dishonesty.

Quote:

Then you'll have to wait for the empirical testing to prove that it's true. Without hearing these words, children will not be conditioned to seeing one group as beautiful and another as ugly. That doesn't mean there won't be personal preferences, but these preferences won't become a standard for everyone.

Just like you will have to wait for empirical evidence that the colour blue causes murder and that firemen are the condition that allows fires to occur. Future evidence does not exist yet, and there for, it is not evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is the problem with the book. At no point did he feel any need to fact-check, test, prove, or support his ideas. He can either have been ignorant of the fact that in any even remotely scientific work, this is an absolute requirement, or he can have simply felt that there was no need for it, and that his self-proclaimed authority as a genius should be enough.

Oh my god, that is exactly what he was up against; people who thought they were the authorities not because of what they knew but because of their rank.

So if you do not fact-check, prove, test, support your idea... that means that people are pulling rank on you? Amazing! But then are you not doing the same thing to me by rejecting my theory about firemen and the colour blue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Tell me - if you were asked to change the entire organisation of your countries society, would you be happy to do so on the say-so of someone, just because that person assures you he is a grade-a brainbox and has spent a lot of time on his system? That would just be silly, right? The guy could be dead wrong.

He isn't telling anyone to change anything other than the need to destroy the weapons of mass destruction and become a citizen of this new world (if they want to), which would allow everyone to be guaranteed that their standard of living would never go down. This transition doesn't hurt a single hair on anyone's head.

According to his say so. And nothing else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet that is exactly what your father expected the US to do. He even tried to sue the president to get this done. Despite the fact that the key part of this book - the assumption that conscience works the way he says it does - is completely unsupported.

Conscience works exactly like he described. What else is conscience for but to determine whether our actions can be justified when it comes to hurting someone. If we can justify it, our conscience will permit the action. If we can't justify it, our conscience won't let us permit the action.

I love it when you break ranks and really show how you think.

Quote:

Conscience works exactly like he described.

And yet your only reason to say so is "he said it did." You have not supplied a single different one.

Quote:

What else is conscience for but to determine whether our actions can be justified when it comes to hurting someone.

What else is funk for but to determine the funkiness of a given situation? This is called "begging the question".

Quote:

If we can justify it, our conscience will permit the action. If we can't justify it, our conscience won't let us permit the action.

I know you claim that is what happens. I am just saying you provide no reason to believe your claim is correct.

ceptimus · #**20872** 10-27-2012, 11:47 PM

Surely, peacegirl, you've looked up into a blue summer sky and seen the vapour trails of high-flying aircraft. If the trail is a new one, then you can see a (tiny looking because of its distance) plane at the head of the trail. But you can't hear the planes because they are about nine miles high, and, unless they happen to be directly overhead, even further than nine miles away from you, due to the horizontal distance.

thedoc · #**20873** 10-28-2012, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Conscience works exactly like he described. What else is conscience for but to determine whether our actions can be justified when it comes to hurting someone. If we can justify it, our conscience will permit the action. If we can't justify it, our conscience won't let us permit the action.

So you are saying that conscience works according to what can be justified?