A revolution in thought - Page 954

Dragar · #**23826** 01-07-2013, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So I take it that's a "no," then.

Which neatly demonstrates that you don't understand your own "model" of vision, much less the standard model.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If the eyes have a blind spot because there are no cones or rods on that part of the retina, then we won't see a small part of the external world. I just did the test and saw the dot disappear. Very cool, but I don't see where this negates efferent vision.

Blind Spot

Once again demonstrating that Lessans ideas are useless in explaining anything about the world!

It doesn't even matter if he's right about vision. At this point you've successfully removed his daft notions into complete irrelevency by refusing ot make any predictions about the world that the standard explanation disagrees with. And even worse: all the explanatory power comes from the standard explanation too! Lessans adds nothing!

You have to be kidding? First of all if he is right about vision, wouldn't you want to know that?

Why? I can land spaceships on distant planets without Lessans help. In fact, I can make every prediction I need to, completely correctly, without Lessans help. It seems there is in fact no difference that Lessans being correct about vision would make. As a scientist, there's no reason to care about what Lessans thinks. It's simply irrelevent to all progress and understanding.

Quote:

Secondly, the fact that you say this knowledge is irrelevant because it doesn't make any predictions about the world is completely off base. This knowledge will remove many of the injustices that exist today because of this new understanding of our relationship with the external world, which has been misconceived.

Blah blah blah, nothing about vision here.

As regards to vision, what does Lessans contribute? What do his ideas do for me that the standard model of vision doesn't? Can I predict things better? Understand things better? No, and no.

LadyShea · #**23827** 01-07-2013, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes have a blind spot because there are no cones or rods on that part of the retina, then we won't see a small part of the external world. I just did the test and saw the dot disappear. Very cool, but I don't see where this negates efferent vision.

If the brain looks out through the eyes "as windows", why would light receptor neuron configuration cause a blind spot in our vision?

For the same reason that a blind spot would occur in the afferent model. There's no difference just because the brain is looking outward instead of interpreting the image inward. I have no idea what you're trying to prove here.

The spot disappears because it falls on the optic nerve head, the hole in the photoreceptor sheet.

Blind spots

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This shouldn't happen if efferent vision was true. We should see what is there to be seen, not what our brain creates using received light striking photoreceptors, correct?

But we can only see what is there to be seen through light, just as we do in the afferent model. Our brain is still capable of closing the gap of any information that cannot be seen as a result of a blind spot on the retina.

Our brain can only fill in gaps in images it is creating. How would it add to whatever is being seen if it was looking out at the world?

Why would afferent photoreceptors make any difference to what the brain sees if it is looking out?

You are being contradictory

thedoc · #**23828** 01-07-2013, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes have a blind spot because there are no cones or rods on that part of the retina, then we won't see a small part of the external world. I just did the test and saw the dot disappear. Very cool, but I don't see where this negates efferent vision.

If the brain looks out through the eyes "as windows", why would light receptor neuron configuration cause a blind spot in our vision?

For the same reason that a blind spot would occur in the afferent model. There's no difference just because the brain is looking outward instead of interpreting the image inward. I have no idea what you're trying to prove here.

The spot disappears because it falls on the optic nerve head, the hole in the photoreceptor sheet.

Blind spots

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This shouldn't happen if efferent vision was true. We should see what is there to be seen, not what our brain creates using received light striking photoreceptors, correct?

But we can only see what is there to be seen through light, just as we do in the afferent model. Our brain is still capable of closing the gap of any information that cannot be seen as a result of a blind spot on the retina.

Our brain can only fill in gaps in images it is creating. How would it add to whatever is being seen if it was looking out at the world?

Why would afferent photoreceptors make any difference to what the brain sees if it is looking out?

You are being contradictory

And it demonstrated that Peacegirl doesn't have any understanding of either model of vision.

peacegirl · #**23829** 01-07-2013, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes have a blind spot because there are no cones or rods on that part of the retina, then we won't see a small part of the external world. I just did the test and saw the dot disappear. Very cool, but I don't see where this negates efferent vision.

If the brain looks out through the eyes "as windows", why would light receptor neuron configuration cause a blind spot in our vision?

For the same reason that a blind spot would occur in the afferent model. There's no difference just because the brain is looking outward instead of interpreting the image inward. I have no idea what you're trying to prove here.

The spot disappears because it falls on the optic nerve head, the hole in the photoreceptor sheet.

Blind spots

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This shouldn't happen if efferent vision was true. We should see what is there to be seen, not what our brain creates using received light striking photoreceptors, correct?

But we can only see what is there to be seen through light, just as we do in the afferent model. Our brain is still capable of closing the gap of any information that cannot be seen as a result of a blind spot on the retina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Our brain can only fill in gaps in images it is creating. How would it add to whatever is being seen if it was looking out at the world?

Brains can still do what brains do in an effort to fill in a gap that is brought on by a blind spot whether we see in real time or delayed time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would afferent photoreceptors make any difference to what the brain sees if it is looking out?

You are being contradictory

No I am not being contradictory and I will not let you get away with this accusation. Photoreceptors exist. The light is used to allow the brain to see. If there are no cones or rods we cannot see. This has nothing to do with direction. You're trying desperately to make it appear that there is a link between cones and rods and how the brain works. You're making a big leap.

LadyShea · #**23830** 01-07-2013, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

You come off like Polyanna, all sweet and innocent and then you use your bait and switch tactics.

What have I baited with then switched to? When have I acted like Polyanna even once?

Just the way you asked me a question and I innocently responded by giving away a link that you then used against me. You baited me with your apparent sympathy that somone told me I should die, and I took it that you were sincere. Instead, you switched to an attack against me and joined those who said such horrible things. I know your game now and I'm on the look out so that I don't get caught again in your little web of destruction again.

You made a claim about a death threat and I asked you who made it and you answered. How is an answer given "innocently" or not innocently? I offered no words of sympathy. I asked the question straightforwardly with no embellishments. (FTR I have had many death threats made against me online). What did you read as sincere sympathy in my question?

You didn't give me a link you told me which forum it was on. I looked there to see what had transpired. I quoted the discussion back to you...your words and the words said to you. How is that me using anything against you? If you don't want your claims verified then don't make any.

peacegirl · #**23831** 01-07-2013, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So I take it that's a "no," then.

Which neatly demonstrates that you don't understand your own "model" of vision, much less the standard model.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If the eyes have a blind spot because there are no cones or rods on that part of the retina, then we won't see a small part of the external world. I just did the test and saw the dot disappear. Very cool, but I don't see where this negates efferent vision.

Blind Spot

Once again demonstrating that Lessans ideas are useless in explaining anything about the world!

It doesn't even matter if he's right about vision. At this point you've successfully removed his daft notions into complete irrelevency by refusing ot make any predictions about the world that the standard explanation disagrees with. And even worse: all the explanatory power comes from the standard explanation too! Lessans adds nothing!

You have to be kidding? First of all if he is right about vision, wouldn't you want to know that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why? I can land spaceships on distant planets without Lessans help. In fact, I can make every prediction I need to, completely correctly, without Lessans help. It seems there is in fact no difference that Lessans being correct about vision would make. As a scientist, there's no reason to care about what Lessans thinks. It's simply irrelevent to all progress and understanding.

But you're thinking very narrowly. You're right, this knowledge does not change physics or predictions about getting to distant planets. That's not what this book is about. This knowledge was found indirectly which has everything to do with our relationship to the external world. This removes a serious injustice, so for you to say what difference does this knowledge make is outrageous, for it changes the entire landscape of how we view ourselves and each other.

Quote:

Secondly, the fact that you say this knowledge is irrelevant because it doesn't make any predictions about the world is completely off base. This knowledge will remove many of the injustices that exist today because of this new understanding of our relationship with the external world, which has been misconceived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Blah blah blah, nothing about vision here.

As regards to vision, what does Lessans contribute? What do his ideas do for me that the standard model of vision doesn't? Can I predict things better? Understand things better? No, and no.

Blah blah blah is your answer? This is not about prediction, but this is about understanding how man relates to the outer world? Where have you been Dragar? Sometimes I think I am being taped for a future candid camera show.

peacegirl · #**23832** 01-07-2013, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

You come off like Polyanna, all sweet and innocent and then you use your bait and switch tactics.

What have I baited with then switched to? When have I acted like Polyanna even once?

Just the way you asked me a question and I innocently responded by giving away a link that you then used against me. You baited me with your apparent sympathy that somone told me I should die, and I took it that you were sincere. Instead, you switched to an attack against me and joined those who said such horrible things. I know your game now and I'm on the look out so that I don't get caught again in your little web of destruction again.

You made a claim about a death threat and I asked you who made it and you answered. How is an answer given "innocently" or not innocently? I offered no words of sympathy. I asked the question straightforwardly with no embellishments. (FTR I have had many death threats made against me online). What did you read as sincere sympathy in my question?

What embellishments LadyShea? This is not about anything other than intention. Most people who were asked who said such a thing would have taken that as compassion or concern. I am no different than anyone else, and I will guarantee that most people would have felt this was an expression of true concern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You didn't give me a link you told me which forum it was on. I looked there to see what had transpired. I quoted the discussion back to you...your words and the words said to you. How is that me using anything against you? If you don't want your claims verified then don't make any.

I did not want my claims verfied. I was just answering you as to where this came from because I didn't want you to think they came from this forum. I gave you information which you then used against me. I will not do this again. You mentioned Holy Divine as if this person's response confirmed that I should be put on the guillotine. Let it go LadyShea. The harm has already been done. I will do what I need to do to protect myself from you.

Dragar · #**23833** 01-07-2013, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So I take it that's a "no," then.

Which neatly demonstrates that you don't understand your own "model" of vision, much less the standard model.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If the eyes have a blind spot because there are no cones or rods on that part of the retina, then we won't see a small part of the external world. I just did the test and saw the dot disappear. Very cool, but I don't see where this negates efferent vision.

Blind Spot

Once again demonstrating that Lessans ideas are useless in explaining anything about the world!

It doesn't even matter if he's right about vision. At this point you've successfully removed his daft notions into complete irrelevency by refusing ot make any predictions about the world that the standard explanation disagrees with. And even worse: all the explanatory power comes from the standard explanation too! Lessans adds nothing!

You have to be kidding? First of all if he is right about vision, wouldn't you want to know that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why? I can land spaceships on distant planets without Lessans help. In fact, I can make every prediction I need to, completely correctly, without Lessans help. It seems there is in fact no difference that Lessans being correct about vision would make. As a scientist, there's no reason to care about what Lessans thinks. It's simply irrelevent to all progress and understanding.

But you're thinking very narrowly. You're right, this knowledge does not change physics or predictions about getting to distant planets. That's not what this book is about. This knowledge was found indirectly which has everything to do with our relationship to the external world. This removes a serious injustice, so for you to say what difference does this knowledge make is outrageous, for it changes the entire landscape of how we view ourselves and each other.

Quote:

Secondly, the fact that you say this knowledge is irrelevant because it doesn't make any predictions about the world is completely off base. This knowledge will remove many of the injustices that exist today because of this new understanding of our relationship with the external world, which has been misconceived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Blah blah blah, nothing about vision here.

As regards to vision, what does Lessans contribute? What do his ideas do for me that the standard model of vision doesn't? Can I predict things better? Understand things better? No, and no.

Blah blah blah is your answer? This is not about prediction, but this is about understanding how man relates to the outer world? Where have you been Dragar? Sometimes I think I am being taped for a future candid camera show.

With regards to VISION, peacegirl. That's what I was referring to, and I made it very clear by saying things like "with regards to vision". Lessans claims about vision are irrelevent and useless - mainly due to your reinterpretations of his claims to save them from just being wrong. If you are going to respond, it would be nice for you to read what I have written.

peacegirl · #**23834** 01-07-2013, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So I take it that's a "no," then.

Which neatly demonstrates that you don't understand your own "model" of vision, much less the standard model.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If the eyes have a blind spot because there are no cones or rods on that part of the retina, then we won't see a small part of the external world. I just did the test and saw the dot disappear. Very cool, but I don't see where this negates efferent vision.

Blind Spot

Once again demonstrating that Lessans ideas are useless in explaining anything about the world!

It doesn't even matter if he's right about vision. At this point you've successfully removed his daft notions into complete irrelevency by refusing ot make any predictions about the world that the standard explanation disagrees with. And even worse: all the explanatory power comes from the standard explanation too! Lessans adds nothing!

You have to be kidding? First of all if he is right about vision, wouldn't you want to know that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why? I can land spaceships on distant planets without Lessans help. In fact, I can make every prediction I need to, completely correctly, without Lessans help. It seems there is in fact no difference that Lessans being correct about vision would make. As a scientist, there's no reason to care about what Lessans thinks. It's simply irrelevent to all progress and understanding.

But you're thinking very narrowly. You're right, this knowledge does not change physics or predictions about getting to distant planets. That's not what this book is about. This knowledge was found indirectly which has everything to do with our relationship to the external world. This removes a serious injustice, so for you to say what difference does this knowledge make is outrageous, for it changes the entire landscape of how we view ourselves and each other.

Quote:

Secondly, the fact that you say this knowledge is irrelevant because it doesn't make any predictions about the world is completely off base. This knowledge will remove many of the injustices that exist today because of this new understanding of our relationship with the external world, which has been misconceived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Blah blah blah, nothing about vision here.

As regards to vision, what does Lessans contribute? What do his ideas do for me that the standard model of vision doesn't? Can I predict things better? Understand things better? No, and no.

Blah blah blah is your answer? This is not about prediction, but this is about understanding how man relates to the outer world? Where have you been Dragar? Sometimes I think I am being taped for a future candid camera show.

With regards to VISION, peacegirl. That's what I was referring to, and I made it very clear by saying things like "with regards to vision". Lessans claims about vision are irrelevent and useless - mainly due to your reinterpretations of his claims to save them from just being wrong. If you are going to respond, it would be nice for you to read what I have written.

Now you're looking more and more foolish. I am not reinterpreting his claim Dragar, and for you to say that this knowledge is irrelevant, shows me that you either don't understand his reasoning, or you don't want to understand. You can't, in all honesty, tell me that this knowledge will have no impact on how we view ourselves and how we view each other. It will actually bring every human being up to a level of absolute equality. But you say it makes no difference.

thedoc · #**23835** 01-07-2013, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not want my claims verfied. I was just answering you as to where this came from because I didn't want you to think they came from this forum. I gave you information which you then used against me. I will not do this again. You mentioned Holy Divine as if this person's response confirmed that I should be put on the guillotine. Let it go LadyShea. The harm has already been done. I will do what I need to do to protect myself from you.

WOW! Persecution complex, Martyr syndrome, gereral paranoia, imagined death threats, then projecting it all onto others, along with hysteria thrown in. Peacegirl is a real package deal, one stop shopping for all the good stuff. Oh, and delusions of Grandeur go along with the paranoia. Did I forget being the Messiah. (Of course in this scenario, Lessans is the Messiah, and Peacegirl is John the Baptist and the diciples all in one).

Peacegirl, can you really not see all this in your posts? I can understand how reading comprehension of other peoples posts could be a problem, but you should at least be aware of what you are writing yourself?

Dragar · #**23836** 01-07-2013, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're looking more and more foolish. I am not reinterpreting his claim Dragar, and for to say that this knowledge is irrelevant, shows me that you either don't understand his reasoning, or you don't want to understand. You can't, in all honesty, tell me that this knowledge will have no impact on how we view ourselves and how we view each other. It will actually bring every human being up to a level of absolute equality. But you say it makes no difference.

I said "with regards to vision". Are following what I'm saying here? Because it seems like you are just blurting out responses to what you are imagining instead of what I'm actually saying.

By the way, blind spots: the perfect example of your reduction of Lessans to irrelevency.

thedoc · #**23837** 01-07-2013, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not want my claims verfied.

Except by scientists, philosophers,and celebrities, something you have stated all along that you are looking for well known people to verify Lessans work. Lessans claims are now your claims which you are desprately looking for someone, anyone who will agree with any part of them. And that is what you will then stand up and trumpet to the world that Lessans was right. I guess I should look for something that he wrote, or that you have claimed that I can agree with. Shouldn't take too long, only a couple million years?

thedoc · #**23838** 01-07-2013, 05:10 PM

'Blind Spots', if we see afferently, the blind spots will be there. If we see efferently the brain is looking out through the eyes and will be looking past the spot on the retina where the optic nerve attatches. (They must use 'Crazy Glue' in the efferent vision model.) The only way the 'blind Spot' comes into play is if the photons striking the retina are translated into signals that are sent to the brain to form an image, there will be a small spot where there are no rods and cones. If the light striking the retina is not part of the process of the brain actually forming an image there will be no blind spot. Light might signal the brain to look outbut that will be all, and a blind spot will not be in evidence.

peacegirl · #**23839** 01-07-2013, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're looking more and more foolish. I am not reinterpreting his claim Dragar, and for to say that this knowledge is irrelevant, shows me that you either don't understand his reasoning, or you don't want to understand. You can't, in all honesty, tell me that this knowledge will have no impact on how we view ourselves and how we view each other. It will actually bring every human being up to a level of absolute equality. But you say it makes no difference.

I said "with regards to vision". Are following what I'm saying here? Because it seems like you are just blurting out responses to what you are imagining instead of what I'm actually saying.

Yes, I'm following what you're saying. As regards to vision, for you to say that Lessans' claims are irrelevant even if he is right, is not even close to being good science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

By the way, blind spots: the perfect example of your reduction of Lessans to irrelevency.

And how do blind spots reduce Lessans to irrelevancy. Spit it out Dragar because you're being evasive.

Dragar · #**23840** 01-07-2013, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And how do blind spots reduce Lessans to irrelevancy. Spit it out Dragar because you're being evasive.

Because confronted by them, you offered no explanation from Lessans. You just said "Well it works the same way as in the standard explanation!". Once again, trusting Lessans claims to be taken as written, we should have found something different and been able to discriminate between Lessans notions and the standard explanation. We could have learned something by this comparison.

But rather than learn, you reduce Lessans to irrelevency. We can't trust his explanations, because they never mean anything. Nothing beyond "it works just like the standard model, but is secretly different" anyway.

And evasive? :lol:

peacegirl · #**23841** 01-07-2013, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And how do blind spots reduce Lessans to irrelevancy. Spit it out Dragar because you're being evasive.

Because confronted by them, you offered no explanation from Lessans. You just said "Well it works the same way as in the standard explanation!". Once again, trusting Lessans claims to be taken as written, we should have found something different and been able to discriminate between Lessans notions and the standard explanation. We could have learned something by this comparison.

I never just said well that's how it works. He explains very clearly what's going on, and if you're not sure he is right, you can wait until further testing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

But rather than learn, you reduce Lessans to irrelevency. We can't trust his explanations, because they never mean anything. Nothing beyond "it works just like the standard model, but is secretly different" anyway.

And evasive? :lol:

What do you mean his explanations never mean anything? The difference between the two models has some very important implications; by knowing how the brain and eyes work, we can begin to understand how we were able to be conditioned by words which stratify people into layers of value, which have no reference to reality whatsoever. I think that's a pretty big deal, especially when these hurtful words become obsolete and give everyone equal respect. We can also use this knowledge as a clue to understanding other things, such as death.

Spacemonkey · #**23842** 01-07-2013, 10:00 PM

Seeing as you're back to discussing vision...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was asked to explain how a camera and the eye can be the same when a camera doesn't have a brain. That cameras develop photographs of real time images, and the eyes see those images (or objects) in real time, does not change the mechanism that allows this to occur. This was a reasonable explanation.

No, appealing to a comparison with something else that you can't explain is NOT a reasonable explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Having to get there is not necessary if it's a mirror image. The only way a mirror image can show up is if the requirement that the object is within the field of view, is met.

Satisfying your requirements DOES NOT explain how the light gets to be there at the film. Anything that is somewhere has to get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But not the full light spectrum, therefore it is believed that the pattern of light will produce an image of the object that it bounced off of.

Of course not the full spectrum. So long as objects have absorptive properties, it will not be the full spectrum that bounces off objects. But the light is still distinct from the object and travels without bringing anything but itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a matter of opinion. If the eyes are efferent light reveals (or reflects) the world, not the other way around.

No, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a simple matter of understanding what the word 'reflect' means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light does not have to get anywhere if the eyes are efferent, that's just the point. The light reveals the object which means it has to be a mirror image which does not require travel time.

Photons that get from the object to the distant camera to form a mirror image there with zero travel time are TELEPORTING photons. Getting from one physical location to another physical location without traveling through the intervening distance and without taking any time to get there is teleportation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't understood a thing I've tried to explain, which is why there can be no resolution in either of these debates. :eek:

You haven't tried to EXPLAIN anything. You don't even seem to understand what an explanation actually is.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**23843** 01-07-2013, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the only difference is that the eyes use light to see the object directly, whereas a camera uses that same light to form a picture. I know you don't understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth first.

That's alright though, you don't understand it either.

I do understand how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Eart first and I explained why the image would be the same. Why are you mocking me?

More lies. You don't have any idea how a picture can be taken without light traveling to Earth to be present at the camera, and you ran away from this problem last time after deciding to change the topic:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent sight cannot be analyzed in terms of traveling photons, as if these photons contain the image alone. This is where you are having problems. I don't want to continue this conversation at this time (maybe at a later date) because I have more important things to talk about right now (i.e., how to achieve world peace).

Your weaseling avoidance is noted. I will bring it up again next time you steer the discussion away from conscience and free will back to vision. Until then efferent vision will continue to be rejected due to your contradictory claims about the behavior of light on your account.

Therefore...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

White light is just the collection of light of differing wavelengths. When this light hits an object, some of it is absorbed and used up, while the rest bounces off and travels away. The light that bounces off and travels away is the non-absorbed light.

You're just repeating the exact thing Lessans is disputing.

Yes. They are also the known measurable properties of light - which you and Lessans are disputing. What happens to these non-absorbed photons after they hit an object, if they don't bounce off and travel away from it? Don't just say that they "reveal the object". You need to explain where they are and where they are going immediately after hitting the object that allows them to do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand your interpretation, and I believe it's wrong. It is true that part of the spectrum that got absorbed is no longer there. The question is what is happening with the non-absorbed light. Is it bouncing and being reflected, or is it revealing the external world to those who are looking in that direction?

The non-absorbed light can't affect the retina or a film without coming into contact with it. It can't come into contact with it without traveling there at the speed of light. If it gets there any faster then it is violating physics by either teleporting or traveling faster than light. If you think otherwise, then please go ahead and explain where these non-absorbed photons are immediately after hitting the object, and how they can interact with the film or retina to 'reveal the external world' without first getting to the film or retina, and taking time to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why we only get on the retina the non-absorbed photons which allow us to see the object. But the question remains...

The question that remains is this: How do the non-absorbed photons allow us to see the object on your account, given that they start at the object and can't affect the retina in any way without first getting from the object to the retina?

Bump.

LadyShea · #**23844** 01-08-2013, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes have a blind spot because there are no cones or rods on that part of the retina, then we won't see a small part of the external world. I just did the test and saw the dot disappear. Very cool, but I don't see where this negates efferent vision.

If the brain looks out through the eyes "as windows", why would light receptor neuron configuration cause a blind spot in our vision?

For the same reason that a blind spot would occur in the afferent model. There's no difference just because the brain is looking outward instead of interpreting the image inward. I have no idea what you're trying to prove here.

The spot disappears because it falls on the optic nerve head, the hole in the photoreceptor sheet.

Blind spots

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This shouldn't happen if efferent vision was true. We should see what is there to be seen, not what our brain creates using received light striking photoreceptors, correct?

But we can only see what is there to be seen through light, just as we do in the afferent model. Our brain is still capable of closing the gap of any information that cannot be seen as a result of a blind spot on the retina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Our brain can only fill in gaps in images it is creating. How would it add to whatever is being seen if it was looking out at the world?

Brains can still do what brains do in an effort to fill in a gap that is brought on by a blind spot whether we see in real time or delayed time.

So brains can still create images using light from receptor neurons in efferent vision? How is that any different from the standard model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would afferent photoreceptors make any difference to what the brain sees if it is looking out?

You are being contradictory

No I am not being contradictory and I will not let you get away with this accusation. Photoreceptors exist. The light is used to allow the brain to see.

What is the role of photoreceptors in efferent vision? How is the light used in efferent vision? Where does the light need to be in order to see in efferent vision?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there are no cones or rods we cannot see.

Why not? What role do they play in efferent vision?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with direction.

Why not? What do photoeceptors do in your model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're trying desperately to make it appear that there is a link between cones and rods and how the brain works. You're making a big leap.

Cones and rods are neurons. Of course there is a link between them and the functions of the brain.

LadyShea · #**23845** 01-08-2013, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

You come off like Polyanna, all sweet and innocent and then you use your bait and switch tactics.

What have I baited with then switched to? When have I acted like Polyanna even once?

Just the way you asked me a question and I innocently responded by giving away a link that you then used against me. You baited me with your apparent sympathy that somone told me I should die, and I took it that you were sincere. Instead, you switched to an attack against me and joined those who said such horrible things. I know your game now and I'm on the look out so that I don't get caught again in your little web of destruction again.

You made a claim about a death threat and I asked you who made it and you answered. How is an answer given "innocently" or not innocently? I offered no words of sympathy. I asked the question straightforwardly with no embellishments. (FTR I have had many death threats made against me online). What did you read as sincere sympathy in my question?

What embellishments LadyShea? This is not about anything other than intention. Most people who were asked who said such a thing would have taken that as compassion or concern. I am no different than anyone else, and I will guarantee that most people would have felt this was an expression of true concern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You didn't give me a link you told me which forum it was on. I looked there to see what had transpired. I quoted the discussion back to you...your words and the words said to you. How is that me using anything against you? If you don't want your claims verified then don't make any.

I did not want my claims verfied. I was just answering you as to where this came from because I didn't want you to think they came from this forum. I gave you information which you then used against me. I will not do this again. You mentioned Holy Divine as if this person's response confirmed that I should be put on the guillotine. Let it go LadyShea. The harm has already been done. I will do what I need to do to protect myself from you.

Who introduced the subject of your beheading to that conversation, peacegirl?

LOL, you routinely invoke martyrdom, with its associated death imagery, out of a histrionic persecution complex...I don't feel sympathy for you being called on that kind of bullshit.

thedoc · #**23846** 01-08-2013, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean his explanations never mean anything? The difference between the two models has some very important implications; by knowing how the brain and eyes work, we can begin to understand how we were able to be conditioned by words which stratify people into layers of value, which have no reference to reality whatsoever. I think that's a pretty big deal, especially when these hurtful words become obsolete and give everyone equal respect. We can also use this knowledge as a clue to understanding other things, such as death.

It just keeps getting better and better, when you think that Peacegirl/Lessans couldn't say anything more stupid than the last thing, she comes up with something even better. Except that this is old and has been refuted, conditioning is psychological, inside the brain, and yes it does involve words, but vision is not even a little bit a part of it. The eyes do not project words onto a blank screen of reality. The image is formed inside the brain and the word is attatched to it there.

thedoc · #**23847** 01-08-2013, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can also use this knowledge as a clue to understanding other things, such as death.

Perhaps you could tell us what Lessans has told you from the "Great beyond"?
-
What color is the light?

LadyShea · #**23848** 01-08-2013, 04:28 AM

And LOL even harder at protecting yourself from me. I've never been dishonest with you. I've never threatened you in any way. What do you need to protect yourself from?

thedoc · #**23849** 01-08-2013, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And LOL even harder at protecting yourself from me. I've never been dishonest with you. I've never threatened you in any way. What do you need to protect yourself from?

Must be your avatar.

koan · #**23850** 01-08-2013, 07:05 AM

Writing a rebuttal to another man's book is a common thing to do. Lessans is essentially writing a rebuttal to Durant. His fixation is obvious. In common practice, a rebuttal is written within a year of the book it criticizes. Lessans was already 30 years too late when he started. He is 82 years late now.

Nobody cares if Durant was wrong. We really don't.

If you take out all the references to Durant, what are you left with? That should be your starting point as an editor.