A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I am not going to consider all possibilities because I know that efferent vision is not only plausible, but accurate.

That means you're closed-minded and dogmatic. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Your "because" is a non sequitur, it doesn't follow that you shouldn't consider all possibilities. In fact, considering other people's worldview may open the door to really understanding efferent vision and how it relates to afferent vision.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not evaded your questions.

No, you have simply not answered them and posted something on a tangent to the question, but I'm not sure how much that differs from evading?

[Dragar]

peacegirl, you've yet to tell me how the Sun would look different if (as we claim) we only saw its light, and not its mass (as you claim).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

That means you're closed-minded and dogmatic. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Your "because" is a non sequitur, it doesn't follow that you shouldn't consider all possibilities. In fact, considering other people's worldview may open the door to really understanding efferent vision and how it relates to afferent vision.

But, we don't have afferent vision. I'm really not interested in discussing this topic any longer.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But, we don't have afferent vision.

And that is yet to be proven, and efferent vision has not been proven possible. So far all the tests and experiments have pointed to afferent vission as the true representation of reality. Asserting that we do not have afferent vision, does not make it so. But all the tests that support it does make it so that we do have afferent vision.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really not interested in discussing this topic any longer.

That is quite understandable that when you are wrong, and have nothing to support your argument, you would want to just walk away.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, you've yet to tell me how the Sun would look different if (as we claim) we only saw its light, and not its mass (as you claim).

I can't even imagine, can you?

[Dragar]

Interesting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What plausible answer have you already offered and do you presently see for how the mirror image photons at the retina get to be there without having traveled there?

If you want to take this up again, then reply to my refutation in the other thread which you ran away from.

What plausible solution does Lessans already have for how photons get to be instantaneously at the retina as soon as the Sun is first ignited and without traveling there or teleporting there? What answers can you or he offer to the following questions?

1. Were these mirror image photons always at the retina?

2. Did they come into existence there as newly existing photons?

3. Are they photons that came from the Sun?

Of course photons are from the Sun. I never said they were instantly at the retina Spacemonkey, but if we see the object in real time, that means that the light is present at the retina (because light is the necessary condition that allows us to see the object) even though the photons are continually being replaced. This can only occur in efferent vision because in this account the space between the object seen and the eye is within the optical range. If the brain was creating an image from the light (the afferent account), then we would have to wait for the light to arrive in order to see.

[koan]

Two years is a long time to argue with the same people about what is science or scientific knowledge and what is not. The beauty of science is that it provides consistent results so you can set up simple experiments to show people and be sure they will see what you are trying to show. If you were like David, you'd have found your magic rock and slaughtered every detractor by now. Actually, you'd have done so about two years ago. If you wish to liken yourself to David you'll have to find out what your informational slingshot is and practice firing your rock.

If you were right, two years of explaining the principles over and over would have been a delight to you because you'd be excited at the chance of sharing your fascinating and enlightening knowledge. You'd look forward to each new challenge and, if posed a question that troubled you, you'd be thankful that we helped you to find an area that you needed to address.

One thing about forums that is really neat is that you can go back and revisit history to verify what happened. History, as recorded in your two threads, shows that you are not acting like someone who actually has answers, you are acting like someone who wants unmerited awe and respect. On the planet Earth, awe and respect are things you have to earn. Your audience gets to tell you what they require to give it because they are the keepers of the reward you want. Sucks, but that's the way it works.

You want what only other people can give you and that puts you at their mercy.

[But]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

At this stage of the game I would have to say that you are not evading anyone's questions. Evasion would imply that you are in control of yourself as opposed to having a sick mind full of compulsions and delusions.

Oh shut the fuck up.

[But]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Are you sure you got done trying to find out what they really mean, or did you just decide that what they were doing had no value to it?

Can you elaborate?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that people in here have already made up their minds that this work has nothing of value, which is why they aren't really interested in finding out whether Lessans' observations have any merit. They are treating his observations like junk, which is really sad.

Everything has potential value. It depends on what you do with it. Do you think that this kind of "vision" is not really about the eyes at all, but rather about how we create our own reality by observing it? Like in a dream?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But, we don't have afferent vision. I'm really not interested in discussing this topic any longer.

What do you mean? Try to clarify what you really mean by that. What exactly don't we have?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course photons are from the Sun. I never said they were instantly at the retina Spacemonkey, but if we see the object in real time, that means that the light is present at the retina (because light is the necessary condition that allows us to see the object) even though the photons are continually being replaced. This can only occur in efferent vision because in this account the space between the object seen and the eye is within the optical range. If the brain was creating an image from the light (the afferent account), then we would have to wait for the light to arrive in order to see.

Actually you did say that the photons at the retina were there instantly. If they are not, then how do we see the Sun at the instant it is ignited? Lessans says we can see the Sun as soon as it is ignited, and you say that this requires photons present at the retina, but then if these photons are from the Sun and they don't get from the Sun to the retina instantly, then we won't be able to see the Sun as it is ignited like Lessans says. So who is wrong, you or Lessans?

And if the mirror image photons at the retina are from the Sun, then you must explain how they got from the Sun to the retina. The photons are now at the retina, yet they were once 93 million miles away at the surface of the Sun. How did they get from the one location to the other? Are the same photons in both locations at the same time? Or did they instantaneously teleport from the one location to the other? Or did they travel there at light speed, taking time to arrive?

These photons from the Sun which you say form the mirror image can't have left the surface of the Sun before it was ignited, right? So if they don't get from the Sun to the retina instantly then we won't see the Sun as soon as it is ignited like Lessans said, will we? And if he was right and we do see the Sun as soon as it is ignited, then these photons must either be in two places at once, or be teleporting across 93 million miles in zero time, right? Either that or these photons were not from the Sun as you say.

So which is it? How does efferent vision explain this?

[But]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The difference is in the location of light, which is what I've been talking to you about for over a year.

Your bolded statement above has light in two different places simultaneously. That is bi-location (Bilocation, or sometimes multilocation, occurs when an individual or object is located (or appears to be located) in two distinct places at the same instant in time)

This bi location is the problem I have with your account. That would be an unusual property of light, to say the least, if it can be physically located two places at once.

It occurs all the time, but just in a certain sense. Things being in several places at once is the essence of quantum physics, but an important aspect is that no one sees them in several places at once, violating energy conservation and I think other things. If the kind of bilocation of people that has been reported is real, I would bet that no one saw them in two places at once, only once the shared reality is constructed, it stays in the record as a kind of anomaly. Maybe it's possible in some way without leading to inconsistencies.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, I’ve been giving this some thought for a considerable time, and here’s what I have come up with.


First, is peacegirl a liar and a hypocrite? Oh yes, definitely so. Anyone who thinks otherwise should read the threads from the beginning. Still, it’s entirely possible (and, I think, very likely) that she’s not consciously lying or hypocritical. And so, it’s hard to blame her too much.

Is she an idiot? Signs definitely point to that conclusion – at least where Lessans and his musings are concerned. Where Lessans is concerned, she seems to be utterly incapable of rational thought. But for all anyone else knows, she may be perfectly rational in all other things. We’ve all seen this sort of thing before – for instance, the Religious Fundamentalist who is utterly incapable of rational thought where his/her religious beliefs are concerned, but rational in other things.

While I think it’s important to confront lies and hypocrisy, it’s not really nice to call someone a liar or a hypocrite, much less an idiot. That’s doubly true if the person is suffering from a condition that makes it impossible for them to understand that they are lying and being hypocritical. And I think that the evidence strongly suggests that peacegirl falls into this category.


So, I’d like to take the opportunity to apologize for calling peacegirl a liar, a hypocrite, and an idiot. Not because I don’t think that she isn’t, but because it’s unbecoming to say this. And because I really don’t think that she can help it.


For some time now, I’ve felt that it’s utterly impossible to break through peacegirl’s self-imposed wall of ignorance. Heck, she herself has repeatedly stated that she won’t read evidence that contradicts Lessans’ claims. And to all appearances, she’s utterly incapable of assimilating any knowledge that contradicts him.

So what is the point? For a time, I persisted because of the faint hope that maybe, just maybe, she would actually pay attention, and maybe even learn something – maybe even consider the possibility that Lessans might have been mistaken about a few things, and that his work might need amending.

But it has been almost two years now, and there’s not a shred of evidence that she has learned anything at all. So it really does seem like beating a dead horse at this point.

I mean, she started insulting and belittling people on her very first day here, even when they had been perfectly polite. Why? For the “crime” of failing to uncritically accept Lessans’ writing as clear, concise, and – most importantly – “undeniably true.”

In hopes of providing some useful material, I wrote a 30+ page essay on the anatomy and physiology of sight for her. I was perfectly polite and respectful. In it, I explained in detail what we know of how vision functions – including, among other things, why we can be so sure that neurons not only do not but cannot conduct impulses from axons to dendrites – and why, therefore, we can be so sure that there are no afferent components to vision from an anatomical/physiological perspective.

Her response was to declare – repeatedly – that she would not read it. Because, she explained, she already knew all that she needed to – even as she freely admitted that she was almost totally ignorant of the relevant visual anatomy and physiology. After all, as she has repeatedly told us, if science says that Lessans was wrong, then it’s science that is wrong. Because Lessans isn’t wrong – about anything. End of discussion.

Both davidm and LadyShea have patiently and thoroughly explained why Lessans committed a textbook example of the modal fallacy in his reasoning. In response, peacegirl basically replied, “Nuh-uh, and you’re big fat meanies for saying that he did.” At no point has she ever been able to provide any justification for her claim that Lessans didn’t commit the modal fallacy, much less demonstrate any understanding of what the modal fallacy is.

Many, many people have provided detailed explanations of how Lessans’ claims violate not just what is known of visual anatomy and physiology, but well-established knowledge in the fields of astronomy, physics, and animal behavior. People have patiently explained to her – complete with charts, graphs, and relevant citations and links – how Lessans’ claims are flatly contradicted by Special Relativity and by astronomical observations.

And in all of this, her response has been to metaphorically stick her fingers into her ears and say “Does not!”. When pressed, she has even gone so far as to say that she doesn’t care that all of the observational and experimental evidence we have available flatly contradicts Lessans’ claims – in her mind, that just means that the observations and experiments are “flawed” somehow, and/or that “something else is going on.” When it’s pointed out to her that many of our technologies actually depend on Lessans’ claims being wrong in order to function (GPS navigation and LIDAR, for example), her reply basically boils down to: “Nuh-uh.” What she will not admit is even the possibility that Lessans might have been mistaken.

Frankly, I’ve come to strongly suspect that she’s not capable of seriously contemplating the possibility that Lessans could have been mistaken.

I and others have begged – nay, pleaded – with her for nearly two years now to provide some actual evidence for Lessans’ claims. And she has never done so. Unless you count some demonstrably-false claims about vision in infants, dogs, and non-human animals – claims that, even if they were true, would not in any way support Lessans’ “model” of vision.

Instead, we’re constantly urged to take Lessans’ claims on pure faith. We’re assured that Lessans was really brilliant and that he made all sorts of – unspecified – “astute observations” which demonstrate that his claims are “undeniably true.” When asked what those “astute observations” were – how they were taken, how they were verified, how we can replicate them, etc. – she simply repeats her assertion that he made certain unspecified “astute observations” which led him to his “mathematically-certain” and “undeniable” conclusions.

When asked for some reason to believe that these “astute observations” were made at all, much less that they lead to his “undeniable” conclusions, we’re told to trust her. We’re to take it on her word that he really made these “astute observations” – though she can’t say what they were, when they took place, etc. – and that they lead to his “undeniable” conclusions.

To “justify” this, she has claimed – repeatedly – that because Lessans was really, really smart, if he had made any errors in fact or logic, he’d have noticed and corrected them. So, it’s “undeniably true” that he didn’t make any errors in fact or logic. Q. E. D.

She grows positively indignant whenever anyone dares to point out that, to all appearances, her belief in Lessans’ infallibility is a faith-based belief. Yet she refuses to provide any actual evidence for his claims. Instead, she insists that she’s absolutely sure that at some unspecified time in the future, unspecified experiments will be performed which will – somehow – disprove pretty-much everything we thought we understood about neural anatomy & physiology, Special Relativity, etc., and in the process justify Lessans’ claims.



Anyway, I rather strongly suspect that as far as Lessans is concerned, peacegirl is, in effect, a religious fundamentalist, and utterly incapable of incorporating new information where it conflicts with her religious beliefs. Witness the number of times she has made a claim, had said claim thoroughly debunked, admitted that the claim was false – and then, a few days later, gone right back to making that claim. She has done this so many times that it’s more or less a running joke.

I don’t know that that’s so much willful dishonesty on her part as it is a genuine inability to incorporate information that conflicts with Lessans’ claims.



So: long story short, I really don’t think there’s any point in continuing to discuss these things with peacegirl any more. She’s never going to admit that Lessans was – or even could have been – mistaken in his claims. At best, she incorporates a bit of knowledge, then “re-sets” a few days later and goes right back to making the same wholly-unsupported or thoroughly-debunked claims. And so, in almost two years’ time, there has been absolutely no progress.

That having been said, there has been some interesting side-discussion in the threads. It has been an excellent venue for discussing such topics as Special Relativity and how it relates to how we see, for example.

But for myself, I don’t think that I’ll be returning to the thread. It serves no purpose.


Cheers,

Michael

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

Two years is a long time to argue with the same people about what is science or scientific knowledge and what is not. The beauty of science is that it provides consistent results so you can set up simple experiments to show people and be sure they will see what you are trying to show. If you were like David, you'd have found your magic rock and slaughtered every detractor by now. Actually, you'd have done so about two years ago. If you wish to liken yourself to David you'll have to find out what your informational slingshot is and practice firing your rock.

If you were right, two years of explaining the principles over and over would have been a delight to you because you'd be excited at the chance of sharing your fascinating and enlightening knowledge. You'd look forward to each new challenge and, if posed a question that troubled you, you'd be thankful that we helped you to find an area that you needed to address.

One thing about forums that is really neat is that you can go back and revisit history to verify what happened. History, as recorded in your two threads, shows that you are not acting like someone who actually has answers, you are acting like someone who wants unmerited awe and respect. On the planet Earth, awe and respect are things you have to earn. Your audience gets to tell you what they require to give it because they are the keepers of the reward you want. Sucks, but that's the way it works.

You want what only other people can give you and that puts you at their mercy.

I deserve respect because I'm a human being that has done nothing to anyone that would be deserving of such mistreatment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Everything has potential value. It depends on what you do with it. Do you think that this kind of "vision" is not really about the eyes at all, but rather about how we create our own reality by observing it? Like in a dream?

No, the importance of this knowledge is to understand mankind's intrinsic equality. It also demonstrates how words have caused us to be conditioned to seeing people as beautiful and ugly. The "ugly" people were handicapped from the day of their birth. This conditioning could not take place if the eyes were a sense organ. When these words are removed, the brain will not take a photograph of certain features in relation to certain words which give us a distorted version of reality. Children will not grow up feeling inferior or superior to others due to their physiognomies.

There will always be personal preferences, but they won't be made into standards that stratify people into layers of value. This knowledge also explains that just because we are superior in certain things does not make us deserving of more respect. This goes back to the fact that value is personal, not a standard that is used to make some people feel as if they are not as important as others because of differences in abilities. I think this knowledge is extremely important if it removes an injustice that has hurt so many due to words only.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Actually you did say that the photons at the retina were there instantly. If they are not, then how do we see the Sun at the instant it is ignited?

We would see the Sun the instant it is ignited if it is bright enough. If it isn't, then we wouldn't see it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans says we can see the Sun as soon as it is ignited, and you say that this requires photons present at the retina, but then if these photons are from the Sun and they don't get from the Sun to the retina instantly, then we won't be able to see the Sun as it is ignited like Lessans says. So who is wrong, you or Lessans?

You are still missing what I have been saying. If we can see an object (in this case the sun), then that means light has to be at the retina or we wouldn't be able to see it. That means the requirements for sight have been met according to the efferent model. If we cannot see the object, then the requirements for sight have not been met. Either the object is too small or not bright enough to be seen, therefore the photons will not be at the retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if the mirror image photons at the retina are from the Sun, then you must explain how they got from the Sun to the retina.

They traveled Spacemonkey, but we're not talking about millions of miles. We're talking about a small area in which the object is within the optical range.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The photons are now at the retina, yet they were once 93 million miles away at the surface of the Sun. How did they get from the one location to the other? Are the same photons in both locations at the same time? Or did they instantaneously teleport from the one location to the other? Or did they travel there at light speed, taking time to arrive?

You're going right back to the afferent model. I can't deal with this.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

These photons from the Sun which you say form the mirror image can't have left the surface of the Sun before it was ignited, right? So if they don't get from the Sun to the retina instantly then we won't see the Sun as soon as it is ignited like Lessans said, will we?

As I said, if the Sun being ignited causes it to be bright enough, then we will see it because the light will be at the retina. If the ignited Sun is not bright enough yet, then we won't see it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if he was right and we do see the Sun as soon as it is ignited, then these photons must either be in two places at once, or be teleporting across 93 million miles in zero time, right? Either that or these photons were not from the Sun as you say.

So which is it? How does efferent vision explain this?

You're, once again, looking at light traveling which is the afferent perspective. You are not looking at this in terms of the eyes looking at the object, which does not require long distances. It only requires the object to be within the field of view, and it doesn't matter if the object is 100 million miles away or a few feet away, as long as it meets the requirements.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would see the Sun the instant it is ignited if it is bright enough. If it isn't, then we wouldn't see it.

You are still missing what I have been saying. If we can see an object (in this case the sun), then that means light has to be at the retina or we wouldn't be able to see it. That means the requirements for sight have been met according to the efferent model. If we cannot see the object, then the requirements for sight have not been met. Either the object is too small or not bright enough to be seen, therefore the photons will not be at the retina.

They traveled Spacemonkey, but we're not talking about millions of miles. We're talking about a small area in which the object is within the optical range.

You're going right back to the afferent model. I can't deal with this.

As I said, if the Sun being ignited causes it to be bright enough, then we will see it because the light will be at the retina. If the ignited Sun is not bright enough yet, then we won't see it.

You're, once again, looking at light traveling which is the afferent perspective. You are not looking at this in terms of the eyes looking at the object, which does not require long distances. It only requires the object to be within the field of view, and it doesn't matter if the object is 100 million miles away or a few feet away, as long as it meets the requirements.

I am not going back to the afferent model by mentioning traveling light. You yourself have just told me above that these photons traveled to the retina from the Sun. That means the traveling photons I am asking you about are a part of your own account. You are contradicting yourself by saying both that these mirror image photons from the Sun are both instantly at the retina and also that they have to travel from the Sun to get there. If they travel at light speed across an actual distance of 93 million miles then they are not going to be there instantly. And if they are there instantly as soon as the Sun first ignites then they cannot have got there by traveling across this intervening distance. So which is it?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by But

Oh shut the fuck up.

You first.

[thedoc]

Pummeling a deceased equine! Peacegirl doesn't have a clue how photons get anywere, she probably has no real understanding of what photons are, other than 'molecules of light'. She continues to refer to 'White Light' as if all photons are white and then decide to be one color or another on a whim, or the wings of light. Her language continues to demonstrate that she has no understanding of anything other than Lessanology. There are several people who understand Lessanology but only one who believes in it, and so at some point it will be lost in the dustbin of obscure ideas that had no relavance to reality. In the meantime Peacegirl will continue to hammer away at anyone who will listen, in the vain hope that someone will accept, without thinking, that her fathers big joke was for real.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So: long story short, I really don’t think there’s any point in continuing to discuss these things with peacegirl any more. She’s never going to admit that Lessans was – or even could have been – mistaken in his claims. At best, she incorporates a bit of knowledge, then “re-sets” a few days later and goes right back to making the same wholly-unsupported or thoroughly-debunked claims. And so, in almost two years’ time, there has been absolutely no progress.

peacegirl's problem goes far deeper than fundamentalism. Imagine a fundamentalist that is channeling their prophet and is "editing" the holy book as they go along. Your garden variety fundamentalist is at least reigned in by having to show the source of their claims from a book that is not as malleable. Add to that peacegirl's obvious mental illnesses and two years is nothing. Unless she gets help she will be doing this till the day she dies.

peacegirl, get help.

[But]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

...

I repeat, why don't you just shut the fuck up?