A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

If it is large enough and bright enough for the lens to be aimed at the object, then the light that is revealing the object has to be at the camera.

How does it get there? Photons must touch and be absorbed by the camera film for a picture to be taken. Touch, physically. Like shaking hands.

And what on Earth do you mean it "has to be" at the camera? You use modal verbs oddly...and it is so odd and so consistent. Did Lessans talk like that?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror image is non-absorbed light that is at the retina.

So then how did it get there? The non-absorbed light starts at the surface of the object, because that is where light either does or does not get absorbed. So how does it get from the object to the distant film or retina in no time and without travelling the intervening distance, and without teleporting there?

How can light be at the eye before any light has arrived at the eye?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

we can't see each other because the light being emitted from the Sun is not here yet, so it doesn't meet the requirements of sight. If there's no light surrounding you, how can I see you?

If there are no photons touching the camera film, how can you take a photograph?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it does not relay images to the brain for recognition. It sends impulses but it doesn't do what sense organs do. That's what he meant LadyShea.

Impossible. If he meant something else than what he wrote, he would have spotted this as he worked and studied on this material for 10 hours a day despite having a job as a salesman at the same time, which incidentally means that the poor man only had 6 hours of the day left in which he would have had to commute, eat, and sleep as well. Most of the time you spent with him must have occurred as he speed-walked from the dinner-table to the bathroom, trying to save some time.

But that aside: if he had meant that the optic nerve is indeed an afferent nerve, but that it simply serves a different purpose as it does not transport images to the brain - a fact readily demonstrated by the fact that severing the optic nerve hardly ever leads to blindness - then he would not have written "There is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ". He would have spotted the mistake, and he would have corrected it.

Something else must be going on...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to explain why a photographs would work the same way as the retina? And I already explained 1000 times that regardless of where the object is in the camera's field of view, the same mirror image will show up as it would on the retina.

That's a weasel Peacegirl. Saying it works the same as for the retina doesn't help, because you can't tell me how it works for the retina either. Asserting that mirror images will magically show up doesn't answer my questions about the location and behavior of photons during this process.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

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

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1055972]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is false, the optic nerve is afferent

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it does not relay images to the brain for recognition.

Nobody has ever said the optic nerve relays images to the brain for recognition.

Why does your response start with with the word "but" as if that preposterous strawman is what you think was implied or stated in my simple statement "the optic nerve is afferent"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It sends impulses but it doesn't do what sense organs do.

Sense organs send impulses to the brain along afferent nerves.

So what isn't what sense organs do?

Originally Posted by dictionary

Noun 1. afferent - a nerve that passes impulses from receptors toward or to the central nervous system

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what he meant LadyShea.

What is what he meant and why didn't he say what he meant? What he said was flat out false...a lie if you will.

[davidm]

ISSUES AND TRENDS

Peacegirl Has to Come Up With a Really Good Letter

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM.COM (Internet News Service) -- Peacegirl has to come up with "a really good letter," it was disclosed Monday.

The really good letter, which so far peacegirl has not come up with, would be mailed to "spiritual leaders or musicians or what have you."

"I should be getting early contacts," peacegirl said. "But I got sidetracked again."

E. Mota Khan, a message board analyst with the RAND Corporation, agreed.

"peacegirl should be getting early contacts, not necessarily with scientists, but with spiritual leaders or musicians or what have you," Khan said. "Unfortunately, she got sidetracked."

Analysts agreed that peacegirl can't tell them right off the bat that it's a discovery that will prevent war and crime, or they might get turned off.

"peacegirl can't tell them right off the bat that it's a discovery that will prevent war and crime, or they might get turned off," Khan explained.

At press time, What Have You had not yet received a really good letter from peacegirl.

"I have not received a really good letter from peacegirl, as of press time," What Have You confirmed.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because Lessans wasn't a physicist doesn't mean that physics is not an important field.

Of course physics is an important field. I never suggested otherwise. The point, which I thought clear, was that physics isn't primarily concerned with human physiology, the subject under consideration.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The majority of discoveries are made in the actual field, but not always.

Buh?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was not off at all.

He wrote that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the eyes. That's factually incorrect, and therefore off.

You do know that there are afferent neurons in the human visual system, don't you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already gave this excerpt plenty of times but obviously it has made no impact on you whatsoever.

It had plenty of effect. The excerpt proved to me that Lessans believed there were no "afferent nerve endings" in the human eye, a belief that's false as a simple matter of fact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For those who are serious about understanding what Lessans meant when he said that there are no afferent nerve endings in the eye, please reread.

The best indication -- in most instances the only indication -- of what a person means is what s/he says. Here, Lessans said that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the human eye. His use of the term "because" in the material you highlighted clearly establishes that his views regarding human sight are based on his views regarding the structure of the human eye, namely that there are no "afferent nerve endings." Thus, his views regarding sight are based at least in part on an erroneous belief regarding human physiology.

Lessans' words are more than clear in that regard, and there's no reason to go beyond the language to determine meaning. If he meant something else, he should have said something else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As long as I get my point across, who cares whether I say efferent vision, efferent model, efferent experience, etc. It all means the same thing.

The first eight words of that sentence being the key. What's your working definition of "efferent vision"? (If you've given a definition before, I missed it.)

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I should be getting early contacts but I got sidetracked again. I have to sit down and really come up with a good letter, and I'm procrastinating. I only have a few chapters left to go over and then I will have to move on the next phase. Another reason I am not doing it this way is that I would rather have the book available rather than have them waiting and wondering what it's all about. I can't tell them right off the bat that it's a discovery that will prevent war and crime, or they might get turned off.

This is a bad strategy peacegirl. The last thing in the world you want is for them to be able to read the book before promoting it. Because if they do, they will not promote it.

You are better off postponing giving them a book as long a possible. They might promote it by mistake. That is pretty much your only hope. And when you communicate with them keep it as short as possible. Don't give them any clues that you are batshit insane. That's a deal killer as well since they might want you to go on tour.

And pray to god that they do not know how to use Google. If they come across any of your threads of the last ten years you can forget it.

Frankly, you're screwed.

But what can an insane person expect after all?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't tell them right off the bat that it's a discovery that will prevent war and crime, or they might get turned off.

Then I hope removal of all the wording to that effect was part of your editing of the introduction

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I meant. I can't actually stop you from doing what you want to do. That's one of the principles which leads to the discovery. Principle #1: Nothing in this world has the power to make you do what you don't want to do (barring force), for over this you have mathematical control.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you think you understand his discovery with a question like that?

Obviously the scientific principle in question is one of those scientific, mathematical and indisputable principles that Lessans adduced from his astute observations.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no non traveling light. There is only non-absorbed light which is revealed when the object absorbs the other part of the spectrum. As the Sun emits its photons in a continuous stream, the parts of the white spectrum split up depending on the consistency of the object it illuminates. This does not mean that the non-absorbed part of the spectrum travels indefinitely through space and time even though photons from the Sun are constantly replacing old photons.

If the non-absorbed light does not travel indefinitely through space and time then what does happen to it after it has not been absorbed by the physical object?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that's what humans do if they get excited about something, but before I start marketing this way, I have to plan it very strategically. I think the best way to go about this is to get some endorsements first. The last thing I need are people skimming it and giving bad reviews just because they don't understand it. This is not easy reading for the average person, as you well know.

You are quite correct in saying that this book is not easy reading for the average person. It is not easy reading because it is so badly written and makes so little sense. Lewis Carroll's poem about the Jaberwocky is equally senseless, but it is much easier reading because it is well written.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously light is interacting with the retina due to the fact that the object can be seen. If the object can be seen (in real time), then the light's job, so to speak, is not to bring any images anywhere. The light's property is to reveal what's out there in the material world. But if there is no light on Earth because it hasn't arrived yet, then the requirement for seeing you, who is next to me, hasn't been met, therefore, I have to wait 8 minutes.

Although others have already asked this question I am going to ask it as well because I am compelled to do so as a movement in the direction of greater satisfaction.

If the retina in located on the Earth and the light has not yet arrived on the Earth how can that light interact with the retina? Is this some version of spooky action at a distance?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I meant. I can't actually stop you from doing what you want to do. That's one of the principles which leads to the discovery. Principle #1: Nothing in this world has the power to make you do what you don't want to do (barring force), for over this you have mathematical control. I can ask you nicely, I can tell you that if you continue I won't talk to you anymore, etc., but I can't make you stop if that's what you want to do. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

What if the horse doesn't want to go the water at all? How can you even lead it there if it doesn't want to go? Have you ever actually tried to lead a horse somewhere it did not want to go? Horses (assuming we are not talking about young colts or miniature horses) are much larger and stronger than people. You might, with the aid of a tractor or something, be able to drag a horse to the water, but you can't actually lead a horse somewhere if it is unwilling to be led.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It sends impulses but it doesn't do what sense organs do.

Sending impulses to the brain where they are then processed is exactly what sense organs do. That, in fact, is pretty-much the definition of a sense organ.



You've claimed on many occasions to be interested in learning. But that's a particularly blatant and transparent lie. Not only have you made exactly zero effort to learn about anything that might contradict Lessans' claims, you have -- by your own admission -- gone to considerable lengths to avoid learning about anything that might contradict Lessans' claims.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

But I don't believe you're as much of an idiot as you pretend to be.

A much simpler explanation for your behavior is that you're just a particularly needy attention whore.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What if the horse doesn't want to go the water at all? How can you even lead it there if it doesn't want to go? Have you ever actually tried to lead a horse somewhere it did not want to go? Horses (assuming we are not talking about young colts or miniature horses) are much larger and stronger than people. You might, with the aid of a tractor or something, be able to drag a horse to the water, but you can't actually lead a horse somewhere if it is unwilling to be led.

Fortunately most domestic horses are much more cooperative than most people, and it seems more trusting.

[thedoc]

WOW, 1,040 pages, 25,966 posts, and Peacegirl has not moved at all on her positiion. I know I have learned a few things and I assume others (except Peacegirl) have as well, but to see Peacegirl maintain her willful ignorance, and support of Daddy Lessans ideas is truely remarkable.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

WOW, 1,040 pages, 25,966 posts, and Peacegirl has not moved at all on her positiion. I know I have learned a few things and I assume others (except Peacegirl) have as well, but to see Peacegirl maintain her willful ignorance, and support of Daddy Lessans ideas is truely remarkable.

Not that remarkable if she is mentally ill.

[Angakuk]

Nonetheless, it is still remarkable. Even if it is only remarkably crazy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Not that remarkable if she is mentally ill.

What kind of mental illness would account for her maintaining the same position and belief for 10 years?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Nonetheless, it is still remarkable. Even if it is only remarkably crazy.

And who is more crazy? Her for being here, or us for enabeling her addictiion to attention?

Sanity is much over-rated.

And crazy has it's advantages. - People expect less.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What kind of mental illness would account for her maintaining the same position and belief for 10 years?

If one of her mental dysfunctions involved an inability to form new memories that would do it. It could be early Alzheimer's, dementia, stroke.

[Angakuk]

Alas, she is not entirely bereft of the ability to form new memories. Witness her occasional, and sometimes frequently repeated, references to facts and arguments previously introduced during the course of the discussion. Her apparent memory failures appear to fall into two distinct catagories. First, she does not appear to remember specific arguments and facts that are particularly damaging to her and Lessans' claims. Second, she does not appear to remember her own contradictory statements when those contradictions are damaging to her arguments. In other words, the bulk of her memory failures appear to be convenient losses of memory. She appears to be able to absorb new information when she thinks that it supports her claims. However, her ability to analyse that information and correctly assess its applicabilty to her arguments certainly appears to be in question.

I do think that there is evidence that she has some serious cognitive deficits. In particular she appears to have a significant lack of ability to follow, or even recognize, a logical argument. She also appears to have a problem with extrapolating the consequences of a claim or an argument. Additionally, her prediliction for stringing together unrelated terms and concepts into meaningless word salad suggests a degree of cognitive incoherence. However, all of these behaviors may simply reflect her refusal to acknowledge unpalatable and unfavorable facts. If that is the case one can only say that the bias is strong in this one.

Personally, I remain undecided as to whether she is mentally ill, a true believer wearing mental blinders or a performance artist who is perpetrating a decade long troll of colossal magnitude. If it is the first, then I am truly sorry for her. If it is the second, then she is fair game for debate and may even, some day, benefit from that debate. If it is the third, then I can only stand in awe of her persistence and doff my cap to her.

One thing that I think I can assert with some degree of confidence is that she is blind and deaf to irony. For that lack she has my deepest and most profound sympathy. It must be a terrible thing to be crippled in such a fashion.

[Vivisectus]

Sheesh guys you still don't get it:

IF the requirements for efferent sight, which is that an object is bright enough and large enough to be see, are met, THEN the light from the event seen MUST be at the retina as a mirror image!

This is perfectly logical. If this wasn't the case we would not be able to see, efferently!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you know what you said then you were lying when you said you weren't speaking of yourself personally. You are at home a lot with a mental condition

and you don't think this is slander?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

and sharing this non-knowledge online provides you with the negative attention you crave. You are here out of a compulsive need to share Lessans' non-discovery. It is not a rational desire to productively spread his ideas, because you continue even when you know everyone here has long since concluded that he was obviously flat-out wrong.

Speak for yourself Spacemonkey. You don't know what is in the minds of everyone here, nor do you know every person who is listening in and why they are here. You are taking it upon yourself to judge not only my motives but everyone else's.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But Peacegirl, this is stupid! You've again claimed that the non-absorbed light doesn't travel, apparently forgetting that you've just been telling us otherwise. I quoted you yesterday contradicting yourself on this saying both that it does and does not travel. You were insisting that you aren't saying that it doesn't travel, but now you're saying exactly that once more. If it doesn't travel then what does it do? If the non-absorbed light doesn't stay there at rest and doesn't travel away, then what does it do?

You also say that this non-absorbed light at the object forms an instant mirror image at the eyes without any time involved. But in case you've forgotten, that is teleportation. Getting from one point to another distant point in zero time is teleporting.

You are making the same errors over and over and over again. When will you seek help for your cognitive impairment?

No I'm not making the same errors over and over again. And you better be careful about how you address me because I will put you on ignore. You seem to have a need to put me down. If you think this is going to motivate me, you're wrong. Teleportation is when a photon is at two places at the same time but I already explained that light energy is always being emitted and replacing the non-absorbed light. That is what travels, but the non-absorbed light that splits when the object absorbs the other colors of the visual spectrum, does not travel.

You are still imagining that light has to travel long distances, therefore we cannot be seeing the object in real time. But you are, once again, not thinking in terms of efferent vision. I will repeat: If the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen by the eyes, then that changes the physics involved.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're, once again, assuming that light has to traverse this distance in order to reach the retina.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I'm not assuming anything; I'm just going by what you wrote. It was you who said both that "light is interacting with the retina" and that the light "hasn't arrived yet." My question was premised on your own clear and unequivocal statements.

I explained yesterday and in the previous post that vision is not dependent on light traveling. It is dependent on light surrounding the object and the object being large enough to be seen, or another way of stating it, to be within our visual range.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if one of the requirements is that the object has to be in visual range, and the camera has to be aimed at the object (these are the premises of efferent vision which will turn the scientific world on its head), then the light that is revealing said object has to be at the camera as a mirror image.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

1) One of the requirements of what? Your reference is unclear.

Efferent vision.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

2) The subject matter of this exchange is light interacting with the retina. Why are you talking about cameras?

How many times do I have to repeat myself? It doesn't matter whether I am referring to retinas or film because they work in the same way.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

3) I thought your position was that light doesn't carry, form or constitute images. If that's the case, why are you equating the light that illuminates the object with a "mirror image"?

I never said that light was not necessary. It is a necessary condition of sight, but what has confused scientists is that they believe that light travels with the pattern even when the object (the material substance) is no longer there. This is why they believe we would be able to see a past event. This is a misconception.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just mull over that for awhile before jumping to the conclusion that Lessans was wrong.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Well, we know with certainty that Lessans was wrong in claiming that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the eye. In truth, the human visual system is laden with "afferent nerve endings." Had Lessans know that he was incorrect about the physiology, do you think that knowledge would have affected his claims about vision at all? If so, how?

He was right in what he was trying to explain. He was trying to show that we are not receiving signals from the optic nerve that allow the brain to interpret the image, which is what a "sense organ" is supposed to do, by definition. You can make an issue over this to your heart's content. It doesn't invalidate the claim.