A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Bullshit.

You are much too kind, but I'm not. If peacegirl's time is near (thankfully) I would suggest that her next-of-kin notify us, at the forum, and we can take up a collection for a small arrangement of flowers for the funeral. Hopefully it will be a cremation along with all remaining copies of the 'wack jobs' books. Hopefully her genetic mutations were not passed on to her children.

[thedoc]

WOW! only 52 pages to go.

Are we there yet?

[Vivisectus]

Let me ask you one question. Does any technology that man has created require afferent vision to be absolutely true in order for it to work? Jupiter's moons doesn't count here.

That is the whole point - there are quite a few. Glasses for instance are designed to focus light on a certain area of the retina in a certain way - there would be no point having them there if vision was not afferent.

Microscopes would not function - nothing goes up those puppies but light either.

TV's could not work either - they emit light, which hits the retina.

All of these require afferent vision. How come it took you and Lessans over 60 years to notice this?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't negate his [hypothesis] is any way. Whether the image is simulated using tiny light-emitters and interpreted in the brain, or whether the image is simulated using tiny light emitters and seen directly, it's the exact same thing, just reverse.

Not really - as it means that light hits the retina and brings information to the brain, because the TV emits nothing but light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is the whole point - there are quite a few. Glasses for instance are designed to focus light on a certain area of the retina in a certain way - there would be no point having them there if vision was not afferent.

Microscopes would not function - nothing goes up those puppies but light either.

TV's could not work either - they emit light, which hits the retina.

All of these require afferent vision. How come it took you and Lessans over 60 years to notice this?

Vivisectus, it doesn't change anything. Light is obviously necessary to focus the eyes but that doesn't change with efferent vision. The hypothetical example he gave regarding the sun was just that: hypothetical (an imaginary scenario). It was only meant to show that there is no image being carried in the light whatsoever. Therefore, whether we see an object because it is large enough to be seen (efferent vision), or whether the light is carrying the image to the eyes (afferent vision), it would make no difference because the light, either way, would be impinging on the retina and allowing glasses to correct a refractive problem so that one can focus. I think the confusion is due to the fact that although light is striking the retina, it does not mean that the lightwaves are being converted into electrical signals to be interpreted by the brain, even though it seems logical.

[Vivisectus]

This is getting a bit tedious, as you seem to have no sense of the ridiculous.

First off - he didn't *show* anything. Like everywhere he just announces that it is so, without feeling the need to provide any support for his notions. Just because that counts as incontrovertible proof for you does not make it evidence.

According to what you are saying, even though the light is not what is detected, the eye nevertheless needs to focus the beams of light exactly as if it was in actual fact detecting the image that the lenses of the eye produce on the retina. Astounding! What an amazing coincidence!

So what about Microscopes? The objects we can see through them are too small to be seen by the naked eye, and yet they work by using lenses alone, which only change the way light is focussed. Another amazing coincidence?

Also, how come information appears in the brain carried by nothing? This contradicts the most basic laws of Physics.

I could make the amazing observation that sometimes, babies are born with traits that neither parent had, nor their grandparents. Because of this, I propose the Vivisectus Theory of Babies - they are in fact created in our mummies tummy by fairies that fly up your bum. Sperm and eggs are necessary conditions for this to happen, but they do not play any real role in creating the babies. I don't know how the fairies do this and remain undetected, but that is absolutely no reason to think I am totally crazy for proposing this idea. A true scientific-minded person would keep an open mind and forget that 1: we don't need an alternate theory as the current one works. 2: that the theory contradicts all that we know about science of physics. 3: that the theory does not account for common, everyday things such as the pill. 4: that there really IS no alternate theory, as it simply says "And This Happens Somehow, Trust Me, I Am Never Wrong."

Lessans strange ideas about sight contradict all of physics and science as we know it today. Also, we have no reason to believe we need an alternate theory of sight, the proposed alternative does not account for some very every-day sight-related items and how they work, and finally, we don't really HAVE any alternative theory, as there is no proposed mechanism by which it works.

The ideas about sight are a good example of Lessans strange crackpottery - in stead of just a few legs of the chair missing, this one has no legs at all! This does not slow him down in the least - he still confidently claims to have solved all out problems and requires that all mankind, led by their scientists, hail this as absolutely brilliant.

The revolution never happened. Only a single person in the whole world takes them seriously. They are easily proven wrong, are riddled with fallacies and some of the more bizarre ones are actually physically impossible. The proof of the pudding is in the eating - I think it has been conclusively proven that there is no pudding, as now 60 years have passed and nothing happened, and everyone who came into contact with these ideas rejected them as silly - not because of some sort of bias, but because they are. Time to let it go and find a new hobby.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not really - as it means that light hits the retina and brings information to the brain, because the TV emits nothing but light.

No Vivisectus. Even if light is the only thing being emitted, the brain is able to see the image because of how the pixels are positioned. The only difference between the two is that one interprets the image in the brain, while the other sees the image on the screen.

[Vivisectus]

There IS no image - there is only light. The pixels are there nomatter what - the only difference is that the emit different colors and intensities of light when they are turned on.

This is why I asked if they emit anything else - because they do not change position, they do not do anything except change how much light they emit, and of what wavelength. The implication is that unless what the eye actually detects is light, TV's and monitors cannot work.

Just like a microscope does nothing but bend light in such a way that we can see very small things - for more proof that it is light that we detect: why is it that to see a tiny object under a microscope, you need to flood it with lots of light?

Conventional wisdom says this is because under regular lighting, only very little light reflects off tiny objects, so you need to shine loads on there if you want to enlarge it and get a clear picture. We have a resident microscope enthusiast who will probably be able to confirm this.

But tediously and annoyingly you will ignore this once again, and just repeat to yourself over and over that your father was right - even when we can clearly and easily demonstrate he was dead wrong, as I have just done once again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is getting a bit tedious, as you seem to have no sense of the ridiculous.

First off - he didn't *show* anything. Like everywhere he just announces that it is so, without feeling the need to provide any support for his notions. Just because that counts as incontrovertible proof for you does not make it evidence. Article Source: How Do Glasses Work?

This is very tedious, I agree.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

According to what you are saying, even though the light is not what is detected, the eye nevertheless needs to focus the beams of light exactly as if it was in actual fact detecting the image that the lenses of the eye produce on the retina. Astounding! What an amazing coincidence!

No, the light IS exactly what is being detected.

Definition: Corrective lenses are nothing more than pieces of glass which are cut to a specific curve (your prescription) so that as light enters these glasses, it focuses the image you see on your retina in just the right place. The retina reacts to this light and transports the information to the brain, which the brain translates this information into the actual image. In order for the image to appear correctly, three things happen. The image produced is reduced in size to fit onto the retina. The scattered light focuses at the surface of the retina. Then, the image curves to match the curve of the retina.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So what about Microscopes? The objects we can see through them are too small to be seen by the naked eye, and yet they work by using lenses alone, which only change the way light is focussed. Another amazing coincidence?

Microscope: A magnifying lens is situated in the part of the microscope which is placed near the object being studied. This lens creates an enlarged image of the subject just inside the tube from the light which it reflects. This is quite a complex area of physics but the image of the object which is created inside the microscope is what is actually enlarged to enable a more in depth view of the subject.

There is nothing about a microscope that contradicts efferent vision. The light is still being used in the same exact way.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, how come information appears in the brain carried by nothing? This contradicts the most basic laws of Physics.

Just because nothing is coming into the brain to be interpreted doesn't mean there isn't a connection between the brain, the photoreceptors, and the object, in order for the object to be seen. The information is there; it's just reverse.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I could make the amazing observation that sometimes, babies are born with traits that neither parent had, nor their grandparents. Because of this, I propose the Vivisectus Theory of Babies - they are in fact created in our mummies tummy by fairies that fly up your bum. Sperm and eggs are necessary conditions for this to happen, but they do not play any real role in creating the babies. I don't know how the fairies do this and remain undetected, but that is absolutely no reason to think I am totally crazy for proposing this idea. A true scientific-minded person would keep an open mind and forget that 1: we don't need an alternate theory as the current one works. 2: that the theory contradicts all that we know about science of physics. 3: that the theory does not account for common, everyday things such as the pill. 4: that there really IS no alternate theory, as it simply says "And This Happens Somehow, Trust Me, I Am Never Wrong."

Lessans agrees with you:

Mankind has been slowly developing and if you go back far enough
in history you will find that we believed pregnancy was caused by the
bite of an enamored snake which prevented many girls from bathing
at certain times, but never prevented them from mating.

1. How do we know afferent vision is correct if there is no technology that proves this.

2. There is nothing that is contradictory if you understand what is being disputed.

3. So far there is no pill (or technology) that proves afferent vision is correct. There is only theory built on theory.

4. This is not about trusting anyone; this is about figuring out what is going on so that the truth can be determined.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lessans strange ideas about sight contradict all of physics and science as we know it today. Also, we have no reason to believe we need an alternate theory of sight, the proposed alternative does not account for some very every-day sight-related items and how they work, and finally, we don't really HAVE any alternative theory, as there is no proposed mechanism by which it works.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The ideas about sight are a good example of Lessans strange crackpottery - in stead of just a few legs of the chair missing, this one has no legs at all! This does not slow him down in the least - he still confidently claims to have solved all out problems and requires that all mankind, led by their scientists, hail this as absolutely brilliant.

There is nothing strange about this theory of sight. If you understand why he believed the eyes were efferent, you would be at least open minded to the idea until further proof comes in.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The revolution never happened. Only a single person in the whole world takes them seriously. They are easily proven wrong, are riddled with fallacies and some of the more bizarre ones are actually physically impossible. The proof of the pudding is in the eating - I think it has been conclusively proven that there is no pudding, as now 60 years have passed and nothing happened, and everyone who came into contact with these ideas rejected them as silly - not because of some sort of bias, but because they are. Time to let it go and find a new hobby.

No Vivisectus, you are trying to use the fact that no one on these forums agrees with him as circumstantial evidence that he is wrong. There is a big fallacy there. The only thing that will prove him wrong is proof that he is wrong, and so far no one has met that challenge fair and square.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There IS no image - there is only light. The pixels are there nomatter what - the only difference is that the emit different colors and intensities of light when they are turned on.

This is why I asked if they emit anything else - because they do not change position, they do not do anything except change how much light they emit, and of what wavelength. The implication is that unless what the eye actually detects is light, TV's and monitors cannot work.

Just like a microscope does nothing but bend light in such a way that we can see very small things - for more proof that it is light that we detect: why is it that to see a tiny object under a microscope, you need to flood it with lots of light?

Conventional wisdom says this is because under regular lighting, only very little light reflects off tiny objects, so you need to shine loads on there if you want to enlarge it and get a clear picture. We have a resident microscope enthusiast who will probably be able to confirm this.

But tediously and annoyingly you will ignore this once again, and just repeat to yourself over and over that your father was right - even when we can clearly and easily demonstrate he was dead wrong, as I have just done once again.

No you haven't. I just posted I'm in agreement with science for the most part. There is no conflict with efferent vision if light is what is being detected by the eyes. That is exactly why we can see the images on a computer screen, use microscopes and cameras, see rainbows, and watch TV. You are still not understanding that none of these things prove him wrong because this is not what he is disputing.

[davidm]

Oxygengirl: "Oxygen is a condition of life, but the lungs do not breathe oxygen in. Those silly scientists said we breathe oxygen, but that isn't true. We use oxygen directly."

Us: OK. But all the evidence shows that the lungs breathe oxygen in.

Oxygengirl: "Oxygen is a condition of life, but the lungs do not breathe oxygen in. Those silly scientists said we breathe oxygen, but that isn't true. We use oxygen directly."

Us: Erm ... OK! So what does it mean to say that 'we use oxygen directly' and HOW DOES THAT WORK? What is the MECHANISM, if not the lungs?"

Oxygengirl: "I don't know what the mechanism is. But my Daddy said so!"



Hey, peacegirl, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SAY WE SEE DIRECTLY, AND HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? WHAT IS THE MECHANISM?

Oh, and peacegirl: If God turns on the sun at noon, why do we see the sun at noon, but not our neighbors for eight and a half minutes? How do you explain this miracle, given that I've shown it is logically impossible?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No you haven't. I just posted I'm in agreement with science for the most part.

As has been repeatedly demonstrated to you, all of physics would be wrong, if one could see in "real time" and if the eyes were efferent. Oh, and what about the fact -- which you agreed with! -- that the physical structure of the eye makes efferent seeing impossible? How is a physical structure that cannot make use of efferent impulses, able to make use of efferent impulses?

How?

Fucking idiot.

[Vivisectus]

No, the light IS exactly what is being detected.

You are now contradicting yourself.

There is nothing about a microscope that contradicts efferent vision. The light is still being used in the same exact way.

*sigh* - nothing but light goes through the tube. Unless we detect light, and this information goes to our brain, they cannot work.

You just fail to realize that to detect anything, something must be there to be detected... a radiation, a chemical... something. Lessans weird idea about vision requires the brain to detect objects because they emit... nothing. The information just magically appears. This is categorically impossible.

Just because nothing is coming into the brain to be interpreted doesn't mean there isn't a connection between the brain, the photoreceptors, and the object, in order for the object to be seen. The information is there; it's just reverse.

Information clearly does come into the brain. It is called sight. You are not making sense now, and you don't even realize it.

1. How do we know afferent vision is correct if there is no technology that proves this.

There are. Loads. I mentioned a few.

2. There is nothing that is contradictory if you understand what is being disputed.

So you say, but once again you only think that because you want to think it, and do not support your assertions by anything.

3. So far there is no pill (or technology) that proves afferent vision is correct. There is only theory built on theory

.

Wrong again. Microscopes, televisions, lenses, rainbows... you name it. You just don't understand that they contradict what you were taught, or just ignore it because it means you daddy was actually not all that bright, an idea that you are not able to face.

4. This is not about trusting anyone; this is about figuring out what is going on so that the truth can be determined.

You have no interest in truth at all. You have already decided that your father was a genius, and are trying to confirm this. Somehow the fact that no-one, anywhere, on this board or elsewhere, agrees doesn't even slow you down because you just know, don't you?

As the proud mother said about her son in the marching band:

"everybody is out of step except our johnny!"

There is nothing strange about this theory of sight. If you understand why he believed the eyes were efferent, you would be at least open minded to the idea until further proof comes in.

Open-mindedness is a two-way street. It also means abandoning ideas that are plain wrong, even if this is emotionally difficult. You should try it sometimes, it is quite liberating

The Lessans ideas contradict everything we currently know about physics, a fact you continue to ignore.

No Vivisectus, you are trying to use the fact that no one on these forums agrees with him as circumstantial evidence that he is wrong. There is a big fallacy there. The only thing that will prove him wrong is proof that he is wrong, and so far no one has met that challenge fair and square.

But no-one outside this board agrees with it either. Nor will they - that I can pretty much guarantee. People are stupid enough to believe in homeopathy by the droves, but somehow this just doesn't get any followers... makes you think doesn't it?

The proof is in the pudding - the revolution didn't happen and no-one agrees with the ideas because they make no sense. They are the work of an eccentric and are rejected universally for a good reason.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As the proud mother said about her son in the marching band:

"everybody is out of step except our johnny!"

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No you haven't.

Sure he has. The fact that you're too stupid and/or dishonest to acknowledge that is on you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just posted I'm in agreement with science for the most part.

A roaring dumbass agrees with the science "for the most part." Whoopie shit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no conflict with efferent vision if light is what is being detected by the eyes.

You've proven time and time again that you don't even understand what "efferent" means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still not understanding that none of these things prove him wrong because this is not what he is disputing.

We would have known the truth long ago if only the Holy One's frivolous lawsuit against President Carter had been allowed to proceed.

[Vivisectus]

No you haven't. I just posted I'm in agreement with science for the most part. There is no conflict with efferent vision if light is what is being detected by the eyes. That is exactly why we can see the images on a computer screen, use microscopes, see rainbows, and watch TV. You are still not understanding that none of these things prove him wrong because this is not what he is disputing.

I read it. Most of it made no sense, the rest was willful ignorance, and was quite easily refuted, because in your model information magically appears in the brain, carried by nothing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

We would have known the truth long ago if only the Holy One's frivolous lawsuit against President Carter had been allowed to proceed.

It's not only Carter's fault. President Nixon refused to meet with Lessans, though he found time on his busy schedule to meet with Elvis Presley. There is no justice in the world.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, everyone here is using the EVIDENCE that SHOWS he is wrong.

There is a big fallacy there. The only thing that will prove him wrong is proof that he is wrong, and so far no one has met that challenge fair and square.

THE LONE RANGER PROVED HE WAS WRONG IN THE ESSAY THAT HE WROTE, THAT YOU ADMIT YOU HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT READ!

And I proved that his claims about the sun and vision are logically impossible under ANY theory of sight.


Dingbat.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

President Nixon refused to meet with Lessans, though he found time on his busy schedule to meet with Elvis Presley.

..................

[davidm]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I read it. Most of it made no sense, the rest was willful ignorance, and was quite easily refuted, because in your model information magically appears in the brain, carried by nothing.

Categorically WRONG! We see the object not because it magically appears, but because it is LARGE ENOUGH TO BE SEEN. THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE OBJECT AND THE PERSON SEEING THE OBJECT. IF YOU NOTICE, THE LIGHT IS ALWAYS CONNECTED TO AN OBJECT; IT DOES NOT CARRY IMAGES LONG DISTANCES. THIS IS SO WRONG YOU HAVE NO IDEA. IF YOU THINK YOU CAN REFUTE IT WITHOUT BEING A BULLY LIKE DAVIDM AND ALL HIS FOLLOWERS, DO IT. I WILL LISTEN ATTENTIVELY UNLIKE HIM. THEY GAVE ME NO CHOICE BUT TO IGNORE HIM. HE IS NOTHING BUT A BULLY IN DISGUISE. HE IS TRYING TO BROWBEAT ME INTO SUBMISSION. I WOULD NEVER HAVE LASTED IF HE AND HIS CRONIES WERE NOT PUT ON IGNORE BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE MANIPULATED WHAT LESSANS WAS SAYING TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS IF HE WAS A CRANK. I THANK THIS ADMINISTRATOR FOR HAVING THE IGNORE FUNCTION, BUT MOST OF ALL I THANK LADYSHEA FOR HELPING ME REALIZE I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THEIR BS WITHOUT A FAIR AND HONEST TRIAL! SCIENCE WORKS BECAUSE IT IS FAIR, AND THE PEOPLE HERE ARE FAR FROM IT! WHETHER I'M HERE OR NOT, I WILL DEMAND AN HONEST AND FAIR EVALUATION OF LESSANS' CLAIMS, OTHERWISE IT'S FOUL PLAY EXTRAORDINAIRE!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I read it. Most of it made no sense, the rest was willful ignorance, and was quite easily refuted, because in your model information magically appears in the brain, carried by nothing.

Absolutely wrong Vivisectus, and if you keep saying this it makes me realize you don't want to try to understand what could be going on. YOU WANT TO BE RIGHT AT ALL COSTS, JUST LIKE THE REST OF THEM.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not conditioning. That is an association.

Define conditioning according to Lessans then, because he is obviously using an idiosyncratic one.

The standard definition is a form of learning in which an association is made between a stimulus and a response.

Also, is light itself an object?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Define conditioning according to Lessans then, because he is obviously using an idiosyncratic one.

The standard definition is a form of learning in which an association is made between a stimulus and a response.

Also, is light itself an object?

No, light is not an object. Light is a wavelength that is emitted or reflected. Conditioning is not association. For example, if conditioning works with the other senses, then if someone puts in front of a child (without any other experiences for him to associate the experience with), a negative inflection that says something smells bad (such as a rose), he would start to be conditioned to hating the smell of roses. But this doesn't happen. No matter what someone says, the stimuli that are going to his nose and his brain says to him, "Hmmm, this smells good to me." If an experience occurs that causes him to associate a particular smell with that event, then that could easily change his preference if the event was negative in some way, or positive for that matter. Do you see the difference?

[LadyShea]

No, light is not an object. Light is a wavelength that is emitted or reflected.

So, according to Lessans we can only see "objects" that are large enough to be seen when there is enough light present to see them, and according to you light is not an object? Do I have that correct?

Please define the word "object".