A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You obviously did not hear me. I refuse to get into another discussion on the eyes, so you can try to discredit Lessans. He had strong reasons for why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, but you will continue to ignore those reasons. Interestingly, you did not even know what the word "afferent" meant until it was explained to you. Now you consider yourself an expert.

More mewling weaseling. You think you make Lessans look good by refusing to answer valid and relevant questions about his claims? You think this is a convincing defense of his life's work?

LOL I didn't know what afferent meant, but I learned. I do not think I am an expert, because I am not. I do think I am more informed than you are, though. I went and read about the nervous system. What have you done to inform yourself about these topics?

I will stay here only if people are interested in understanding how we can prevent war on a global scale. If not, I'm gone.

LOL, you've been saying that for over a year now.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That which you do not choose is an impossibility LadyShea. Your reasoning is very limited yet you are acting like you are the queen of reason, and should be honored. No, you should not be honored. My hope is that people see where your reasoning is totally incongruent with reality so that they will want to understand this discovery. Why else would I even be here when I am being constantly ridiculed prematurely? I am not willing to spend my time with you on a one on one basis to show you where your reasoning is completely fallaciouis. I'm sorry to say but you're going to have to figure this out all by yourself.

Show me my reasoning is fallacious (rather than just asserting it) or shut up about it. If my reasoning is incongruent with reality, it should be easy for you to do.

Crying about your hopes being dashed by meanies and trying to insult me is just more histrionic weaseling...you like to think yourself a martyr.

And you've proven you are willing to spend your time with me, you've done it for over a year now. Why do you lie like that?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you should not be honored.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Irrelevant. Fluid flow in pipes is a valid and important research topic, but you would need to be an idiot to say we don't know how pipes work.

As usual, you make some idiotic irrelevant statement in the hope of it being a valid response.

Turn the handle, water comes out. You can't explain that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you believe the eyes contain photoreceptors? Yes or no
Do you believe photoreceptors are afferent? Yes or no
Do you believe the optic nerve is afferent? Yes or no

I told you that this is not how he came to this conclusion...

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel. Answer the questions with yes or no.

These questions validly arise when faced with the claim "there are no similar afferent nerve endings in this organ".

How he came to make this claim is irrelevant. He made it. Do you intend to support it?

No, when it is determined through empirical testing that something is askew with the present understanding, it will be time enough for scientists to reevaluate the afferent model, which may require them to look at the structure of the eye and brain from a different perspective.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm just not getting caught up in something that will ultimately not give us conclusive proof even though you think it's a slam dunk.

I don't think it's funny at all. Why is it so hard to wait for empirical evidence, not just look at the structure of the eye which can be deceiving?

Empirical testing works to prove or disprove a hypothesis, a hunch, a conjecture, an assertion, or a claim. If they have doubts that their conclusions about the eye could be mistaken, they will redo their testing with this claim in mind. If not, we can continue believing what is now accepted as fact. It doesn't change technology, so there's nothing to worry about. The world will not burn up and GPS systems will still work.

In the afferent model, what are we interpreting if not a signal by the brain LadyShea? I'm following the wording people use in here so there are no misunderstandings. He may not have used those exact words, but he said that nothing from the external world is impinging on the optic nerve to cause sight as is the case with the other senses where the brain is interpreting external stimuli.

That's right. He said that there is no stimuli that will get a reaction from the eyes as is the case with the other sense organs. He did not use decodable impulses, but that doesn't mean I can't. I am following the lead in here and using the terminology that others are using to try and bridge the huge gap in understanding, unfortunately to no avail.

I will not try again. If you think I was mistaken, then explain, but don't play this stupid game with me.

It all goes back to what is being transmitted to the brain. We know that impulses are being transmitted. What those impulses relay to the brain, and whether the brain is able to use those impulses to see normally, is the million dollar question. I believe Lessans was spot on even though I can't give a detailed explanation as to how this process works. I said a long time ago that I didn't have an exact model, but this does not automatically negate Lessans' astute observations.

Creatures that sense light are not seeing images. They are detecting light, that's true. Lessans never denied that light can be detected but the definition if interpreted properly means that vision (as in taste, smell, touch, and hearing) takes place in the brain. If you want to play semantic games with me, go right ahead.

Right, he felt that somewhere along the line in the stimuli/receptor transmission what was assumed to be occurring was not actually occurring.

That's what you say about everything he has written. I do not believe that his observations are mere assertions just because the world which he envisioned has not yet come about. He was a visionary because he foresaw, not from faith or prophesy, but from actual observation, how this new world can become a reality in a relatively short time.

What kind of person tries to make something out of nothing just to win a debate? He did not get technical LadyShea, but this doesn't negate his claim. You go off on tangents any chance you get in order to find flaws that are nonexistent, and all you're doing is looking more and more desperate.

Light makes contact with the retina. I am not going to use the term "afferent nerve endings." Got it? Let the unbiased, reliable, empirical testing do its job, and we'll talk again at a later date if we happen to cross paths.

You obviously did not hear me. I refuse to get into another discussion on the eyes, so you can try to discredit Lessans. He had strong reasons for why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, but you will continue to ignore those reasons. Interestingly, you did not even know what the word "afferent" meant until it was explained to you. Now you consider yourself an expert.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

More mewling weaseling. You think you make Lessans look good by refusing to answer valid and relevant questions about his claims? You think this is a convincing defense of his life's work?

I'm passing on what I know in the best way I know how. Take it or leave it. If you were his daughter, you may have done a better job, but you weren't his daughter so you don't get a say in this. I'm doing the very best I can under difficult circumstances.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL I didn't know what afferent meant, but I learned. I do not think I am an expert, because I am not. I do think I am more informed than you are, though. I went and read about the nervous system. What have you done to inform yourself about these topics?

There is nothing to read but the same old same old. Be honest LadyShea, doesn't your question really mean what is out there that will inform you that Lessans is wrong? You know that's what you're trying to do. Read up on something that will disprove him.

I will stay here only if people are interested in understanding how we can prevent war on a global scale. If not, I'm gone.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, you've been saying that for over a year now.

That is true, and somehow the discussion slipped right back to the eyes. Now I have to be the bad guy and tell everyone, once again, that I refuse to discuss this topic anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Turn the handle, water comes out. You can't explain that.

A picture is shown to a dog of his beloved master and he cannot recognize him 5 minutes before his master walks into the room and calls his name. After hearing his master's voice, the dog responds with overwhelming emotion. Why are you in such denial that you can't even acknowledge that something doesn't add up. That is not turning a handle and water comes out. This is a telltale sign that the eyes do not work as a sense organ or the dog would have been able to recognize his master from the photograph alone. As usual, people only defend what they believe supports the accepted "scientific" explanation. They ignore everything that threatens it. Surprise surprise.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NO WE DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL SPACEMONKEY.

Well I don't know about you, but I know that I have 'free will', and I know that because I believe that I have 'free will', and that's good enough for me, and someday I will be proven right.

[peacegirl]

Intermission: Touching video

HSUS Video

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As usual, people only defend what they believe supports the accepted "scientific" explanation. They ignore everything that threatens it. Surprise surprise.

No, this is not the case, scientists will jump at the chance to disprove the accepted scientific explination. As usual Peacegirl has no understanding of the way science really works, just as Lessans had no understanding of science or how science works. An experiment or study that threatens accepted science would be big news and would attract the attention of the entire scientific comunity. The only surprise is that Lessans/Peacegirl have no understanding of science, give how much they like to talk about it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A picture is shown to a dog of his beloved master and he cannot recognize him 5 minutes before his master walks into the room and calls his name. After hearing his master's voice, the dog responds with overwhelming emotion. Why are you in such denial that you can't even acknowledge that something doesn't add up. This is a telltale sign that the eyes do not work as a sense organ or the dog would have been able to recognize his master from the photograph alone.

As has been explained, Dogs do recognize their masters from a photograph, as has been demonstrated in carefully controlled experiments. The master coming into the room later is irrevelant to the question. That a dog can recognize it's master from a photo, has nothing to do with the eyes being or not being sense organs. If the eyes were not sense organs the Dog would be blind.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Intermission: Touching video

HSUS Video

LOL, once again you display your complete lack of desire to understand the world you live in and learn anything. You are so gullible.

HSUS is a deceptive group that uses misleading ads to further their extremist agenda.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true, and somehow the discussion slipped right back to the eyes. Now I have to be the bad guy and tell everyone, once again, that I refuse to discuss this topic anymore.

The discussion returned to vision because you allowed it to. You allowed it because you were getting pummeled on free will and conscience. If you really want to return to these topics, then try providing some support for your claim that under Lessans' changed conditions a justification will always be required to harm another person. Give us some rational reason to believe his claims about conscience.

You won't because you can't. You've used up all of your weasel excuses, and just as with vision, you know you will be reduced yet again to begging us to just provisionally accept his unevidenced claims while waiting for the future evidence that your faith tells you will one day be available to us. You will weasel, lie, and evade for a while, and then allow the topic to shift back to vision to give yourself a break again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None of this is evidence supporting his claims about conscience. It's just your unsupported opinion of his alleged abilities. So why do you keep posting lies about there being a "tremendous amount of evidence" supporting what he said about conscience?

So are you going to stop posting bullshit lies about me not understanding him at all, and not having read the book?

You are again just flatly asserting that there is always a justification. That is the claim I have been asking you to support. Are you going to admit that you cannot support it at all, and that it is therefore an unsupported claim on Lessans' part?

Unlike you and Lessans, I don't redefine my terms. "Everyone" means everyone. His non-discovery will continue to be rejected by everyone because he did not support his claims himself, and as no-one has any reason to believe that he was extremely perceptive or able to see common themes, no-one has any reason to believe that his 'observations' were spot on.

No, we don't. Lessans never provided any direct observations, and did nothing at all to support his claims about conscience. Therefore his claims can and will be rejected. Again, I must ask: If Lessans was such an insightful person, why on Earth did he not anticipate that rational people would require him to provide some kind of evidential support for his claims and assumptions about conscience? Doesn't this strike you as a rather massive oversight on his part?

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

He had strong reasons for why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, but you will continue to ignore those reasons.

That is just not true. These reason where never given. As usual, he forgot to include the "proof", despite claiming that he would prove that it was so.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, when it is determined through empirical testing that something is askew with the present understanding, it will be time enough for scientists to reevaluate the afferent model, which may require them to look at the structure of the eye and brain from a different perspective.

Weasel. Answer the questions or admit that you got nothin'.

Appealing to non existent test results you hope will be forthcoming in the future is the most ridiculous weasel ploy in your vast arsenal

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's already conclusively proven that Lessans was wrong. You can't admit it so you throw little hissy fits instead. You're funny

Watching you flail and gibber is highly amusing. For example, you know exactly fuck all about the anatomy of the eye, so what makes you think the work that has been done by science over the last century is "deceiving"?

No, it works to disprove a hypothesis that was based on empirical observations.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't change technology, so there's nothing to worry about. The world will not burn up and GPS systems will still work.

You don't know the first thing about light physics, so making this claim is just more hysterical gibbering.

Parse your wording of that question again. It is word salad.

We do not receive images from the outside world to decode, hence the term you used "decodable images" is nonsensical.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm following the wording people use in here so there are no misunderstandings.

You spout your misunderstanding of the wording we use every time you try to explain anything. You don't understand the scientific model at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He may not have used those exact words, but he said that nothing from the external world is impinging on the optic nerve to cause sight as is the case with the other senses where the brain is interpreting external stimuli.

Light is something from the outside world. Light is the external stimuli. It does impinge on the optic nerve. The brain interprets light into vision. So, you haven't pointed out any difference between the eyes and other senses.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's right. He said that there is no stimuli that will get a reaction from the eyes as is the case with the other sense organs.

Light is the stimuli that gets a reaction from the eyes. Other sense organs react to other stimuli.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not use decodable impulses, but that doesn't mean I can't. I am following the lead in here and using the terminology that others are using to try and bridge the huge gap in understanding, unfortunately to no avail.

Hows about you use the correct words instead of trying to weasel around and mealy mouth? There is no need at all to talk about decodable impulses or any of that shit right now, we are talking about only whether there are specialized receptors in the eyes that react to light. If the answer is yes, then the eyes are similar to the other sense organs in this regard.

Lessans was trying to say that the eyes didn't contain sensory neurons. He obviously had no idea what photoreceptros were or for whatever reason denied their existence. You are weaseling and twisting and gibbering trying to cover up his ignorance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So add anatomical to the list of words you don't understand.

Try again.

I will not try again. If you think I was mistaken, then explain, but don't play this stupid game with me.

LOL.

Fine, if the eyes are anatomically "different" than the other senses, they wouldn't have any specialized receptors that react to outside stimuli, aka photoreceptors.

Do you believe the eyes contain photoreceptors? Yes or no

Goalposts moving fast! Duck everyone.

A brain is not required for an organism to receive information from the outside world through specialized neurons or organs. Also, sight is not the only sense. There are animals with sense organs we do not share.

It's not about what Lessans wrote, it's about what you say. You constantly appeal to evidence that does not exist, but that through faith you feel will exist sometime in the future.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light makes contact with the retina.

[/quote]
Are there photoreceptors on the retina?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to use the term "afferent nerve endings." Got it?

ROFL, see? You're funny.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL I didn't know what afferent meant, but I learned. I do not think I am an expert, because I am not. I do think I am more informed than you are, though. I went and read about the nervous system. What have you done to inform yourself about these topics?

There is nothing to read but the same old same old. Be honest LadyShea, doesn't your question really mean what is out there that will inform you that Lessans is wrong?

No, I read information that is a cumulation to date of hundreds of years of scientific inquiry. Let me know when you have even a tiny shred of support to offer that Lessans was right and I'll look at it too.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know that's what you're trying to do. Read up on something that will disprove him.

I am looking for info and data. It all tends to disprove him, yes. Why don't you try supporting his positions adequately...espceially those having to do with biology and physics?

[Vivisectus]

What exactly is the case in favour of efferent sight? What made you think it is plausible? I have not been able to find a single reason to believe it is so. Don't you think it would be important to include at least something like that in chapter 4?

Right now there is nothing at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Show me my reasoning is fallacious (rather than just asserting it) or shut up about it. If my reasoning is incongruent with reality, it should be easy for you to do.

Crying about your hopes being dashed by meanies and trying to insult me is just more histrionic weaseling...you like to think yourself a martyr.

And you've proven you are willing to spend your time with me, you've done it for over a year now. Why do you lie like that?

My hopes and dreams are not being dashed by meanies. I have never said that, but I am tired of you telling me that this is a tautology. I told you that his reasoning is not circular. Nor is it a modal fallacy because he begins his reasoning with something observed, not an assertion that tries to use logic to confirm itself. If will is not free it doesn't matter whether it's before a choice or after a choice is made. There is no such separation that falsely identifies a choice as actual before the fact, and necessary after. You have a habit of confronting me, not asking what it is you are confused about, which feels like an accusation. That's what accounts for the way I respond to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel. Answer the questions or admit that you got nothin'.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Appealing to non existent test results you hope will be forthcoming in the future is the most ridiculous weasel ploy in your vast arsenal

Why is it wrong to appeal to empirical evidence, the very testing you hold sacred?

You can tell me he is wrong because of your belief that there is direct contact

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please name two things that you do not think make direct contact according to Lessans.

I am going to plead the 5th amendment because it will be used against me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You won't answer because you're a lying weasel.

No, I'm just not getting caught up in something that will ultimately not give us conclusive proof even though you think it's a slam dunk.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's already conclusively proven that Lessans was wrong. You can't admit it so you throw little hissy fits instead. You're funny

I'm glad you think I'm funny, but I'm not trying to be. It has not been conclusively proven. That's totally wrong and based on your belief that science can't be mistaken.

I have already said that proof will not come from this, yet you are determined to corner me and then say, "See, Lessans was wrong."

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because he was wrong, I just want you to do what you are doing, refuse to answer valid questions because you can't do so. You know Lessans was wrong, but you won't say it, so you say funny things instead like "taking the 5th"....LOL

I don't think it's funny at all. Why is it so hard to wait for empirical evidence, not just look at the structure of the eye which can be deceiving?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Watching you flail and gibber is highly amusing. For example, you know exactly fuck all about the anatomy of the eye, so what makes you think the work that has been done by science over the last century is "deceiving"?

I have already told you that it's how the brain and eye work together that cannot be determined by dissection alone. And I refuse to get into afferent nerve endings one more time.

Empirical testing will need to be constructed that is looking to see if his claim could be correct, not a test to confirm what science already believes is true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, that's not how empirical testing works.

Empirical testing works to prove or disprove a hypothesis, a hunch, a conjecture, an assertion, or a claim.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it works to disprove a hypothesis that was based on empirical observations.

Empirical testing is supposed to be an unbiased way to test a hypothesis. It is supposed to prove or disprove something based on the results of the test.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't change technology, so there's nothing to worry about. The world will not burn up and GPS systems will still work.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't know the first thing about light physics, so making this claim is just more hysterical gibbering.

What I said is based on his claim only. Even if the eyes do not fall into the category of "sense organ", the projections of what people believe the world would look like is totally fabricated. It would not change technology, or burn the earth up, or make the sky white because stars would be too close together. All of these ideas are ridiculous and have no merit.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He said nothing about decodable images, and neither does the standard model of sight. This is a strawman, and a stupid one at that, as you've been told a thousand times.

In the afferent model, what are we interpreting if not a signal by the brain LadyShea?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Parse your wording of that question again. It is word salad.

What is the brain doing in the afferent account of vision? It is interpreting images from light that have been transduced into signals. Isn't that the basic idea?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We do not receive images from the outside world to decode, hence the term you used "decodable images" is nonsensical.

It's a shortcut for the above. So reword it if you think you can do better.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm following the wording people use in here so there are no misunderstandings.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You spout your misunderstanding of the wording we use every time you try to explain anything. You don't understand the scientific model at all.

I'm using the very words people use in this forum. What wording am I misunderstanding other than "decode signals in the brain?"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He may not have used those exact words, but he said that nothing from the external world is impinging on the optic nerve to cause sight as is the case with the other senses where the brain is interpreting external stimuli.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is something from the outside world. Light is the external stimuli. It does impinge on the optic nerve. The brain interprets light into vision. So, you haven't pointed out any difference between the eyes and other senses.

The brain does not interpret light into vision. When reflected light is beyond the point where the photons are no longer visible on the retina, the object cannot be seen. It is not the light that is interpreted; it is the object that is always in one's field of view until. When it is beyond one's field of view, it can no longer be seen because, once again, there are no photons at the retina. This means the light does not have the pattern of the object any longer as it travels through space/time even though it is still traveling at 186,000 miles a second.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's right. He said that there is no stimuli that will get a reaction from the eyes as is the case with the other sense organs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is the stimuli that gets a reaction from the eyes. Other sense organs react to other stimuli.

You still don't understand why light is a condition of sight, not a cause. If those impulses are not being interpreted as an image in the brain, then we can't call the eyes a sense organ, because that's what sense organs do; they receive and transmit external stimuli. These external stimuli are then interpreted by the brain. Light does not do this if Lessans is correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not use decodable impulses, but that doesn't mean I can't. I am following the lead in here and using the terminology that others are using to try and bridge the huge gap in understanding, unfortunately to no avail.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hows about you use the correct words instead of trying to weasel around and mealy mouth? There is no need at all to talk about decodable impulses or any of that shit right now, we are talking about only whether there are specialized receptors in the eyes that react to light. If the answer is yes, then the eyes are similar to the other sense organs in this regard.

The retina is receiving light. What happens after that is debatable but the only way to figure this out is through observation, not through dissection. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans was trying to say that the eyes didn't contain sensory neurons. He obviously had no idea what photoreceptros were or for whatever reason denied their existence. You are weaseling and twisting and gibbering trying to cover up his ignorance.

I am not twisting anything. This whole claim has more to do with what the brain is doing than what the eye is doing. I am not even debating that the eye is receiving impulses. This is all about the direction the brain is looking and it cannot be proven in this way.

I maintain (and will continue to maintain) that the eyes are anatomically different in the way they function

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you think eyes are anatomically different than the other sense organs?
How do you think this anatomical difference translates to a functional difference.

There probably is no unusual difference in the anatomy of the eye with that of the other sense organs (even though he said there are no afferent nerve endings in this organ). The more definitive answer will be found through empirical evidence. This will tell us what the eye and brain are doing in relation to each other. We won't be able to find this answer in studying the anatomy of the eye or the brain alone.

It has to be in the conversion, in other words, what are those impulses transmitting? Are they transmitting something that can be interpreted as normal vision within the brain itself, or are these impulses a necessary connection to the brain that allows the brain to look through the eyes to see what exists?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So add anatomical to the list of words you don't understand.

Try again.

I will not try again. If you think I was mistaken, then explain, but don't play this stupid game with me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL.

Fine, if the eyes are anatomically "different" than the other senses, they wouldn't have any specialized receptors that react to outside stimuli, aka photoreceptors.

Do you believe the eyes contain photoreceptors? Yes or no

I'm not using the term "photoreceptor" for obvious reasons. I will use the term retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not all that is needed to be a sense organ. To be a sense organ there has to be external stimuli that is perceived in the brain.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope. Wrong. There are organisms that have no brains, but do have sense organs.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Creatures that sense light are not seeing images.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Goalposts moving fast! Duck everyone.

They are reacting to the intensity of light. It gives them a minimal amount of information as a survival mechanism. There is no recognition of objects because they have no brain in order to do anything other than the most elementary things. How can you even compare or try to discredit this claim due to these rudimentary organisms. A sense organ assumes there is a brain to feel, hear, touch, or taste, what is being felt or heard. Geezeee, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A brain is not required for an organism to receive information from the outside world through specialized neurons or organs.

If you're only talking about receptors that allow information to interact with the organism, then call it a sense organ. I don't want to argue over definition. Either we see efferently or we don't regardless of what you call it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, sight is not the only sense. There are animals with sense organs we do not share.

I am only focusing on sight. That's not to say I'm not interested in observing how these animals have adapted to their environment for survival.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. I see his reasoning based on careful observation, and I believe it can be empirically verified. Faith has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Belief that possible future evidence will verify a currently unverified belief is faith.

That's what you say about everything he has written.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not about what Lessans wrote, it's about what you say. You constantly appeal to evidence that does not exist, but that through faith you feel will exist sometime in the future.

No, this has nothing to do with faith at all. He was an observer of life; he perceived things others didn't. I will continue to support his discoveries. More testing with the eyes will have to be done. As far as his other discovery, I can only give you the equation that will get us to our destination. He has an equation that works (whether you believe it or not), but you have to accept the validity of his premises in order to move forward. If you can't accept that man's will is not free, and that nothing can make someone do anything against his will (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink), we are at a standstill. After almost two years of discussion. I would have never believed when starting this thread, that we would have made such little progress.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Does light make contact with photoreceptors? Yes or no?

Yes LadyShea, light makes contact with the retina.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you admit light makes direct contact with afferent nerve endings, contrary to Lessans statement

I said light makes contact with the retina. I am not saying anything else until his claims are tested empirically.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light makes contact with the retina.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are there photoreceptors on the retina?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to use the term "afferent nerve endings." Got it?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

ROFL, see? You're funny.

Tell me where I'm funny so I can laugh too. I need some comic relief.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL I didn't know what afferent meant, but I learned. I do not think I am an expert, because I am not. I do think I am more informed than you are, though. I went and read about the nervous system. What have you done to inform yourself about these topics?

There is nothing to read but the same old same old. Be honest LadyShea, doesn't your question really mean what is out there that will inform you that Lessans is wrong?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I read information that is a cumulation to date of hundreds of years of scientific inquiry. Let me know when you have even a tiny shred of support to offer that Lessans was right and I'll look at it too.

Of course there isn't, because this knowledge has graduated into fact, and anything you find will support afferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know that's what you're trying to do. Read up on something that will disprove him.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am looking for info and data. It all tends to disprove him, yes. Why don't you try supporting his positions adequately...espceially those having to do with biology and physics?

Because that is not how he came about finding this knowledge. Just because he was not a physicist or a biologist in no way proves that his observations were inaccurate. I know it's rare for someone to come outside of the field and have something valuable. He happened to be one of these people.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Aww, he's kinda cute.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have a habit of confronting me, not asking what it is you are confused about, which feels like an accusation. That's what accounts for the way I respond to you.

There's your problem. The only questions you want to answer are ones where the questioner assumes Lessans was correct and that the questioner simply hasn't understood what he meant. But you will never receive such questions because everyone but you understands what he said and knows beyond any reasonable doubt that he was wrong. The only questions you will ever receive are ones challenging you to support your unjustified faith that he was right.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is it wrong to appeal to empirical evidence, the very testing you hold sacred?

There is nothing wrong with appealing to presently existing empirical evidence. That is what rational people do. But there is nothing rational about constantly appealing to nonexistent future evidence that you only have faith will one day exist. That's what deluded people do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has not been conclusively proven. That's totally wrong and based on your belief that science can't be mistaken.

LadyShea does not believe that science cannot be mistaken.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to get into afferent nerve endings one more time.

Because Lessans said there weren't any in the eye, but you know that there are. You know that Lessans was wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of these ideas are ridiculous and have no merit.

This is exactly what everyone but you thinks of your father's work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is all about the direction the brain is looking and it cannot be proven in this way.

Brains cannot 'look'. Looking is what systems with eyes do. If something does not have eyes, then it cannot look. The brain does not have eyes. A person can look, but a brain cannot.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know it's rare for someone to come outside of the field and have something valuable. He happened to be one of these people.

No, he did not happen to be such a person. He happened to be an ignorant if well-meaning fool who did not know how to reason or do science.

[LadyShea]

LOL, it's not wrong, merely stupid, to appeal to evidence that does not exist and may not ever exist.

You don't have any actual empirical evidence...only the empirical evidence that exists in your imagination.

I do not hold any belief that science cannot be mistaken. Where do you come up with this shit. LOL

Anyway, hows about you answer the question instead of being a weasel.

Please name the two things that you do not think make "direct contact" according to Lessans. What was Lessans referring to when he said "direct contact"? Do you have the slightest clue?

Nobody here has claimed otherwise. We are discussing the claims Lessans made about the anatomy of the eye. Anatomy is best studied by direct observation...which often includes dissection out of necessity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I refuse to get into afferent nerve endings one more time.

Lessans made assertions about anatomy and structure. You refuse to discuss these claims because you know what he said is completely false. Your refusal is noted.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Empirical testing is supposed to be an unbiased way to test a hypothesis. It is supposed to prove or disprove something based on the results of the test.

Tests are run with the specific goal of falsifying the hypothesis. There's a good reason for that, but you don't give a shit about science or bias...you want people to devise tests to attempt to confirm Lessans ideas.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I said is based on his claim only. Even if the eyes do not fall into the category of "sense organ", the projections of what people believe the world would look like is total hyteria. It would not change technology, or burn the earth up, or make the sky white because stars would be too close together. All of these ideas are ridiculous and have no merit.

If his claims are true, then light physics, and all the technologies based on the known properties of light, are false. Physics cannot be as they are known to be and allow for real time seeing

This is pretty much a slam dunk falsification of Lessans, but again you don't understand the physics at all...so you keep opening your mouth and having stupid fall out.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He said nothing about decodable images, and neither does the standard model of sight. This is a strawman, and a stupid one at that, as you've been told a thousand times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[quoe]In the afferent model, what are we interpreting if not a signal by the brain LadyShea?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Parse your wording of that question again. It is word salad.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is the brain doing in the afferent account of vision? It is interpreting images from light that has been transduced into signals. Isn't that the basic idea?

Your wording and order are just so odd.

Images are the last step in the process, but you put it first.

See The Lone Rangers essay, or read this site Visual System

Unsupported assertion. Back that up with some evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reflected light that travels beyond the point where it is no longer visible on the retina cannot be seen. It is not the light that is interpreted; it is the object that is always is in one's field of view until it is out of one's visual range, which at that point can no longer be seen.

Circular circles are circular. LOL

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This means the light does not have the pattern of the object any longer as it travels through space/time.

LOL, your conclusion does not follow from your nonsensical premises.

Light travels in a straight line at the angle of reflection unless/until it is absorbed, or reflected again. What would preclude it from traveling in a pattern based on the angle and direction after reflection or emission?

Anyway, you are weaseling again.

Light is something from the outside world. Light is the external stimuli. It does impinge on the optic nerve.

This demonstrates that Lessans statement, as expressed by you "he said that nothing from the external world is impinging on the optic nerve to cause sight as is the case with the other senses where the brain is interpreting external stimuli." is false.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's right. He said that there is no stimuli that will get a reaction from the eyes as is the case with the other sense organs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is the stimuli that gets a reaction from the eyes. Other sense organs react to other stimuli.

You still don't understand why light is a condition of sight, but is not a cause.

I can't understand something that has only been asserted but not explained or demonstrated. I can't understand something that is total nonsense.

Anyway, you are weaseling again.

Light is the stimuli that gets a reaction from the eyes. Other sense organs react to other stimuli.

This demonstrates that Lessans statement as expressed by you, "He said that there is no stimuli that will get a reaction from the eyes as is the case with the other sense organs." is false.

Does the retina contain specialized receptors that react to light? If the answer is yes, then the eyes are similar to the other sense organs in this regard

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans was trying to say that the eyes didn't contain sensory neurons. He obviously had no idea what photoreceptros were or for whatever reason denied their existence. You are weaseling and twisting and gibbering trying to cover up his ignorance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not twisting anything. This whole claim has more to do with what the brain is doing than what the eye is doing. I am not even debating that the eye is receiving impulses. This is all about the direction the brain is looking, it cannot be proven in the way you are demanding.

The passage under discussion was all about how the eyes differ from the other sense organs. He wasn't talking about what the brain was doing at all in this section. Weasel.

He said there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye as there are in other sense rgans

He said there is no stimuli that will get a reaction from the eyes as the other sense organs will react to stimuli

He nothing from the external world is impinging on the optic nerve as happens in the other sense organs

These statements are about the structures found in the eye versus the structures found in the other sense organs. He mentions "specialized receptors" in his dictionary definition, but never mentions them again. Sensory receptors are what defines a sense! If he thought the eyes had photoreceptors, he could never say they weren't a sense organ

So you no longer maintain that they are anatomically different. Do you retract that statement, and do you admit that Lessans statement was wrong? We have the empirical evidence that the eyes contain sensory neurons, which are afferent, and we have empirical evidence that the optic nerve is afferent.

What obvious reason...because if there are photoreceptors Lessans was wrong and you are wrong?

You previously agreed that the eyes contain rods and cones...guess what, rods and cones are both types of photoreceptors.

So I ask again, do you believe the eyes contain photoreceptors? Yes or no

Who assumes that? Where is it assumed? You are just making shit up.

Jellyfish have no brain, but have chemosensors that help them identify prey. Are they not a sense organ?

Worms have all kinds of sensory neurons, but no brain. Are those senses not senses?

LOL, shit fit in this thread!

Answer please

You don't like the correct terms so you refuse to use them as if that is a valid argument. It's a funny kind of weasel.

But even according to you science is how the "knowledge" will be verified. It can never be tested unless you can embrace the requirements for scientists to even consider tests. Such as a testable hypothesis. Such as a hole in the current knowledge. Such as an empirical observation not explainable by other models. Such as a working model of any kind.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My hopes and dreams are not being dashed by meanies. I have never said that, but I am tired of you telling me that this is a tautology. I told you that his reasoning is not circular. Nor is it a modal fallacy because he begins his reasoning with something observed, not an assertion that tries to use logic to confirm itself. If will is not free it doesn't matter whether it's before a choice or after a choice is made. There is no such separation that falsely identifies a choice as actual before the fact, and necessary after. You have a habit of confronting me, not asking what it is you are confused about, which feels like an accusation. That's what accounts for the way I respond to you.

I am not confused about anything. I am absolutely confronting you. I am challenging your bullshit.

[koan]

What'd I miss?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can a person be blamed for something that he had to do because he was not free to do otherwise?

Why not blame the person? Seriously, what is it that you think prevents us from blaming a person for doing something that he had to do because he was not free to do otherwise? Is there some kind of universal law that prohibits assigning blame in such circumstances?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A picture is shown to a dog of his beloved master and he cannot recognize him 5 minutes before his master walks into the room and calls his name.

How do you know that the dog did not recognize his master in the picture? It seems to me that all you know in this example is that the dog did not react to the photograph in the same way that the dog reacts to the actual person. Concluding that this behavior means the dog did not recognize his master in the picture is a premature conclusion. It is just as reasonable to conclude that the dog knows that the picture is not the man and that it is therefore inappropriate to treat the picture is if it were the man. That it is to say that, in the absence of more definitive tests, neither conclusion is particularly reasonable or compelling.