A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why do they give hearing tests at birth that tell them whether an infant has fully functioning hearing? They have a way to measure this otherwise the test would be meaningless.

Congenital deafness is a fairly common condition. Testing infants' hearing is a common practice, to check for hearing abnormalities. That does not change the fact that hearing is not "fully developed" by your criteria until years after birth. Does a newborn hear as well as a 1-year-old? No, it does not. Does a newborn see as well as does a 1-year-old? No, it does not.

But newborns can see, just not very well compared to an older child. Heck, a fetus responds to light while still in the womb.

Are you saying that they pick up only partial hearing until age 10? That makes no sense and you know it.

If by "partial hearing" you mean that a newborn doesn't hear as well as does a 10-year-old, then that is a simple fact -- one that is easily demonstrated. Kind of like how a newborn can demonstrably see, but not as well as a 10-year-old. Otherwise, there would be no point in testing a newborn's sight, which is frequently done, especially if there is some reason to suspect congenital blindness.

Since we can -- and do -- test the vision of newborns, then by your own criteria, infants can see. Otherwise, there is no point to doing the tests.

That's not what I've read when it comes to taste. And it's not the case when it comes to hearing otherwise their tests for hearing acuity would mean nothing.

Yeah, we all know how terrible you are at research.

I have read and I will continue to read. So far, there is nothing that says the other senses are undeveloped at birth.

Liar. Go to an actual text on child development or sensory development -- one that references the actual studies. Or, you know, you could read the actual studies. You won't, of course -- and everyone here knows it -- because you won't get the answer you want. As in so many other things when it came to how our bodies function, Lessans didn't know squat, and was to arrogant to check whether or not his claims were actually true.

He may have said there are no similar afferent nerve endings, and he may have been wrong, but that still doesn't make his claim wrong. You are deflecting from his actual explanation because you don't want to admit that it makes absolute sense.

So, explain to us how the brain accomplishes the miraculous and physic-defying feat of "looking out through the eyes," despite the fact that the only connection between the retina and the visual cortex contains afferent fibers only.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Let me get this straight: you spent 5 years waffling and hand-waving and making up instantly appearing but non-travelling photons that are the reverse of the medal of the mirror image blah blah blah, and no amount of pointing out that this is completely impossible, complete with stacks of evidence from multiple fields, would change your mind about it.

But when it turns out your father said something else, you instantly change your mind about it and happily start arguing to exact opposite based on no other information than the fact that he said so.

but everyone ELSE is biased?

Remember how she spent page after page arguing that cameras see in "delayed time" (because they don't have brains), while we (because we have brains) see in "real time"?

She spent pages insisting this was the case, even as people pointed out the absurdity of the claim, and that it is easily disproved by taking a picture of a distant object such as Mars, for example.

Her response was to berate others for being too stupid and/or close-minded, because they failed to understand this "undeniable" claim.


Then she discovered that she had mis-remembered what the Holy Book said, and so she instantly changed her position. Not only did she instantly switch to insisting that cameras do indeed see in "real time," but she stridently denied that she had ever claimed otherwise, despite having spent the past several pages doing exactly that.

It was an amazing thing to watch.

Amazing. You really take hypocrisy to new and as of yet unexplored levels.

Quoted for truth.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is why I put "logic" in quotes. Logic is not proof. Never mind Vivisectus. Your sarcasm has gone too far. You are very smug in your attitude. This makes it difficult for me to have an ongoing conversation with you.

It actually is not logic at all - that is just one of the many words you fail to use appropriately. It is a simple fact: there is no way for the brain to "look out" of the eyes: only afferent fibres, remember?

its like I am pointing out the TV is not plugged in, so it cannot be turned on, and you are going "LOGIC IS NOT PROOF VIVISECTUS!" as you keep pretending it will work just fine.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know I meant 15 weeks. Stop pointing out trivial errors that mean nothing.

It doesn't "mean nothing." You made the same "mistake" in multiple posts, which at the very least means you're sloppy and incompetent.

[The Lone Ranger]

And she repeated the "mistake" after several people had pointed out the silliness of it.


Besides, let's face it: it's hardly the most ignorant/idiotic thing that peacegirl has posted.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Besides, let's face it: it's hardly the most ignorant/idiotic thing that peacegirl has posted.

Like this one?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...when a baby desires to see, this intention is sent to the brain which then causes the brain to focus the eyes.

So, where does the intention orginate that it then gets sent to the brain?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Congenital deafness is a fairly common condition. Testing infants' hearing is a common practice, to check for hearing abnormalities. That does not change the fact that hearing is not "fully developed" by your criteria until years after birth. Does a newborn hear as well as a 1-year-old? No, it does not. Does a newborn see as well as does a 1-year-old? No, it does not.

There are specific screenings that indicate that the hearing apparatus is in working order. Are you saying that a one year old would hear sharper than a newborn who passed the screening?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But newborns can see, just not very well compared to an older child.

That's true.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Heck, a fetus responds to light while still in the womb.

So what? We know the eyes respond to light. This has nothing to do with his claim.

Are you saying that they pick up only partial hearing until age 10? That makes no sense.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If by "partial hearing" you mean that a newborn doesn't hear as well as does a 10-year-old, then that is a simple fact -- one that is easily demonstrated. Kind of like how a newborn can demonstrably see, but not as well as a 10-year-old. Otherwise, there would be no point in testing a newborn's sight, which is frequently done, especially if there is some reason to suspect congenital blindness.

I'd like to see a screening where they prove a 10 year old hears better than a newborn.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Since we can -- and do -- test the vision of newborns, then by your own criteria, infants can see. Otherwise, there is no point to doing the tests.

They can detect certain physical abnormalities, and they can see how the newborn reacts to light. Barring any problem with his brain, the potential for normal sight can be established. But the neonate cannot see because he needs sense experience in order for the eyes to work together as one unit.

That's not what I've read when it comes to taste. And it's not the case when it comes to hearing otherwise their tests for hearing acuity would mean nothing.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yeah, we all know how terrible you are at research.

He was not arrogant and I'm not a liar.

So, explain to us how the brain accomplishes the miraculous and physic-defying feat of "looking out through the eyes," despite the fact that the only connection between the retina and the visual cortex contains afferent fibers only.

I don't know the exact mechanism. What I do know is how we learn language and how this conflicts with the idea that the eyes are afferent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. That's just one of your "logical" conclusions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Pedantic isn't it? All this harping on things having to be "possible", "logical" or supported by "evidence". All you did was invite people to investigate your ideas, and what do they do? They ask for facts, logic and evidence!

But you are judging the accuracy of his claims by a methodology that cannot provide you with those answers not because he was wrong but because this method would require a sample size that would make it impractical. You don't just give up on the claim!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It makes you despair, it really does.

Sure it does. There's a lot at stake.

This is why I put "logic" in quotes. Logic is not proof. Never mind Vivisectus. Your sarcasm has gone too far. You are very smug in your attitude. This makes it difficult for me to have an ongoing conversation with you.

Originally Posted by quote

It actually is not logic at all - that is just one of the many words you fail to use appropriately. It is a simple fact: there is no way for the brain to "look out" of the eyes: only afferent fibres, remember?
its like I am pointing out the TV is not plugged in, so it cannot be turned on, and you are going "LOGIC IS NOT PROOF VIVISECTUS!" as you keep pretending it will work just fine.

The analogy doesn't fly. What if there is a connection but it's on standby? It only needs a reset to start working.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Let me get this straight: you spent 5 years waffling and hand-waving and making up instantly appearing but non-travelling photons that are the reverse of the medal of the mirror image blah blah blah, and no amount of pointing out that this is completely impossible, complete with stacks of evidence from multiple fields, would change your mind about it.

But when it turns out your father said something else, you instantly change your mind about it and happily start arguing to exact opposite based on no other information than the fact that he said so.

but everyone ELSE is biased?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Remember how she spent page after page arguing that cameras see in "delayed time" (because they don't have brains), while we (because we have brains) see in "real time"?

She spent pages insisting this was the case, even as people pointed out the absurdity of the claim, and that it is easily disproved by taking a picture of a distant object such as Mars, for example.

Her response was to berate others for being too stupid and/or close-minded, because they failed to understand this "undeniable" claim.


Then she discovered that she had mis-remembered what the Holy Book said, and so she instantly changed her position. Not only did she instantly switch to insisting that cameras do indeed see in "real time," but she stridently denied that she had ever claimed otherwise, despite having spent the past several pages doing exactly that.

It was an amazing thing to watch.


Amazing. You really take hypocrisy to new and as of yet unexplored levels.




Quoted for truth.

Why are you using my admitted errors to negate this discovery? Is it that you have nothing else to attack me with? I was trying to figure out how cameras work in light of this new knowledge. If I made an error in how I analyzed the question, this does not automatically nullify the claim. And I never called anyone stupid unless it was in response to them calling me stupid first.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even so, it doesn't mean your model of sight is airtight based on your analysis.

All the evidence and data support the afferent model of vision, and there is no evidence or data to support the efferent model, except the unsupported claims of your father. So people have every reason to accept the afferent model and reject the efferent model of vision. The efferent model has been tested for many years and has always failed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why do they give hearing tests at birth that tell them whether an infant has fully functioning hearing? They have a way to measure this otherwise the test would be meaningless. Are you saying that they pick up only partial hearing until age 10? That makes no sense and you know it.

The tests are given to find out if the infant can hear at all, there is a big difference between being totally deaf, and only hearing at a not fully developed level. It makes perfect sense, except that the results disagree with your fathers claims, and that is why you are arguing against them.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I've read when it comes to taste. And it's not the case when it comes to hearing otherwise their tests for hearing acuity would mean nothing.

I have read and I will continue to read. So far, there is nothing that says the other senses are undeveloped at birth.

Again your selective reading comes into play, you only read and retain the articles that seem to support your ideas, even when they don't.

No-one is saying that the senses are undeveloped at birth, but it has been demonstrated that it is normal for the senses to be less developed that they are later. Do you understand the concept that the senses, like other parts of the body, need time to fully develop. That is why human babies do not walk at birth, but sometimes it takes more than a year for the muscles to develop to the point where the infant can utilize the ability they have at birth.

Likewise all the senses are present at birth, but the body takes time to develop for those senses to be fully useful.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's also not true. He may have said there are no similar afferent nerve endings, and he may have been wrong, but that still doesn't make his claim wrong. You are deflecting from his actual explanation because you don't want to admit that it makes absolute sense. You've never even showed me that you understand why he came to this conclusion. That would put you in a state of conflict, and who wants that?

Actually it does disprove his claims because vision can't be efferent without efferent nerves in the visual pathway. Lessans was just too arrogant to learn the truth about vision, so he made up his own version, which just happens to be wrong. Lessans account of vision makes no sense, especially when compared to the reality of how vision actually works. Of course no-one will explain Lessans account of vision because it is complete nonsense and you are correct, anyone who agrees with Lessans account of vision would be in conflict with reality, and no-one wants that.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, there is a discrepancy which I never picked up on. Thanks Chuck for pointing this out. I changed it in my book to his earlier text. I have no idea why he changed it to say that we would see the Sun turned on instantly. This has caused 5 years of unnecessary argument since light traveling the 8 minutes to reach our eyes does not negate his claim one iota. This is what he wrote in Decline and Fall of All Evil (note: I changed molecules to photons):

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther
away we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as
light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound
from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us
it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being
reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very
simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane
simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was
impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a
telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we
can through a microscope. The actual reason we are able to see the
moon is because there is enough light present and it is large enough
to be seen. The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size
of the moon — although much larger — is because it is much
much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to
someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This proves
conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the
object seen, has no relation to time because the images are not
traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes
no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.

To
paraphrase this another way; if you could sit upon the star Rigel
with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very
moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person
sitting right next to me would — which brings us to another very
interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me
because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet
been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, it is true we would not be able to see it until 8 minutes later
because there would not be any light until then since it is traveling
towards us at a high rate of speed. But once the light is here it is
here because the photons of light, emitted by the constant energy
of the sun, surround us.

When the earth rotates on its axis so the section
on which we live is in darkness, this only means the photons of
light are on the other side. When our rotation allows the sun to
smile on us again this does not mean that it takes another eight
minutes for this light to reach us because these photons are already
present. And if the sun were to explode while we were looking at it
we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes later. We
are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not
because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and
the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are
large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light
is present. This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes
were considered a sense organ, like the ears.

OMFG, you pathetic, dishonest, ignorant troll!

So now you admit that Lessans DID NOT claim that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly here on earth? You now ADMIT that the original text says we would have to wait eight minutes to see the sun, eh?

Yet for five and a half years you've been arguing just the opposite -- yammering on about how photons are at the eye even before they arrive there; about "mirror images" and the inverse square law and closed rooms and nanoseconds and all sorts of stuff you haven't the slightest clue about, all to defend a claim tht you now admit Lessans never made!



So -- what? Now you are going to reverse course?

BTW, what he's arguing above is still wrong!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe all by itself it doesn't, but it does cause a snag.

No it doesn't. It is only Lessans unsupported claim that dogs can't learn language, but it has been demonstrated that dogs can learn some words in many languages. There are accounts of police dogs that were trained in German, and the American officer had to learn the German words to be able to give the dog the correct commands. I'm keeping my daughters dog, and she is responding to my voice commands for the few commands that I give her. My daughter was trying to use both voice and hand signals, but to me the hand signals are too much bother and are unnecessary, the dog responds to my voice. So dogs can learn some language, Lessans was wrong.

The other point is that even if a dog can or can't recognize a photo, it has no bearing on whether vision is afferent or efferent. Recognition of an image in a photo it completely irrelevant to the model of vision. Lessans was wrong.

[davidm]

So, peacegirl, is your five and a half year crusade to persuade us that light is at the eye even before it gets there suddenly inoperative? Is it one big "Never mind!"? Do you hope somehow to airbrush out all your idiocies, defending something it turns out Lessans never said, the way that Stalinists used to airbrush out of photos the images of government officials who had been purged?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Logic is not proof.

Yes it is, if the statements are true, and the logic is correct, then the conclusion must be true.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I do know is how we learn language and how this conflicts with the idea that the eyes are afferent.

No, you don't know how humans learn language, you only know what Lessans claimed about learning language, and Lessans was wrong. His ideas about language are laughable at best, and really sad that he believed them and now you seem to have accepted his ideas. But I really think you know better, but are trying to turn your fathers book into a meal ticket.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't just give up on the claim!

There's a lot at stake.

This is one claim that should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

There's nothing at stake, the claims and ideas will not work, Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, there is a discrepancy which I never picked up on. Thanks Chuck for pointing this out. I changed it in my book to his earlier text. I have no idea why he changed it to say that we would see the Sun turned on instantly. This has caused 5 years of unnecessary argument since light traveling the 8 minutes to reach our eyes does not negate his claim one iota. This is what he wrote in Decline and Fall of All Evil (note: I changed molecules to photons):

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther
away we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as
light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound
from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us
it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being
reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very
simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane
simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was
impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a
telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we
can through a microscope. The actual reason we are able to see the
moon is because there is enough light present and it is large enough
to be seen. The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size
of the moon — although much larger — is because it is much
much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to
someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This proves
conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the
object seen, has no relation to time because the images are not
traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes
no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.

To
paraphrase this another way; if you could sit upon the star Rigel
with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very
moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person
sitting right next to me would — which brings us to another very
interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me
because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet
been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, it is true we would not be able to see it until 8 minutes later
because there would not be any light until then since it is traveling
towards us at a high rate of speed. But once the light is here it is
here because the photons of light, emitted by the constant energy
of the sun, surround us.

When the earth rotates on its axis so the section
on which we live is in darkness, this only means the photons of
light are on the other side. When our rotation allows the sun to
smile on us again this does not mean that it takes another eight
minutes for this light to reach us because these photons are already
present. And if the sun were to explode while we were looking at it
we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes later. We
are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not
because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and
the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are
large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light
is present. This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes
were considered a sense organ, like the ears.

Originally Posted by Davidm

OMFG, you pathetic, dishonest, ignorant troll!

So now you admit that Lessans DID NOT claim that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly here on earth? You now ADMIT that the original text says we would have to wait eight minutes to see the sun, eh?

Yet for five and a half years you've been arguing just the opposite -- yammering on about how photons are at the eye even before they arrive there; about "mirror images" and the inverse square law and closed rooms and nanoseconds and all sorts of stuff you haven't the slightest clue about, all to defend a claim tht you now admit Lessans never made!



So -- what? Now you are going to reverse course?

No, I'm not reversing anything. In his desire to explain how light would function under this model, he himself realized that we would have to see the Sun turned on instantly, not 8 1/2 minutes later. That's why there were two different versions, the earlier one being incorrect. His version of sight does not remove light from striking our eyes. It rather puts the wavelength/frequency at the eye as we gaze at the real object.

Originally Posted by Davidm

BTW, what he's arguing above is still wrong!

It would be wrong. That's why he changed it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm not reversing anything. In his desire to explain how light would function under this model, he himself realized that we would have to see the Sun turned on instantly, not 8 1/2 minutes later. That's why there were two different versions, the earlier one being incorrect. His version of sight does not remove light from striking our eyes. It rather puts the wavelength/frequency at the eye as we gaze at the real object.

Buh???

You just got through writing:

Yes, there is a discrepancy which I never picked up on. Thanks Chuck for pointing this out. I changed it in my book to his earlier text. I have no idea why he changed it to say that we would see the Sun turned on instantly. This has caused 5 years of unnecessary argument since light traveling the 8 minutes to reach our eyes does not negate his claim one iota. This is what he wrote in Decline and Fall of All Evil (note: I changed molecules to photons).

So compare what you wrote several posts back:

I have no idea why he changed it to say that we would see the Sun turned on instantly.

With what you just wrote now:

He himself realized that we would have to see the Sun turned on instantly

So, WHICH IS IT?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So, peacegirl, is your five and a half year crusade to persuade us that light is at the eye even before it gets there suddenly inoperative? Is it one big "Never mind!"? Do you hope somehow to airbrush out all your idiocies, defending something it turns out Lessans never said, the way that Stalinists used to airbrush out of photos the images of government officials who had been purged?

It is your reasoning that has failed you. You cannot grasp that when the eyes work in reverse and are not interpreting the light, but are seeing the real thing, light becomes a necessary condition (we need it to see). It does not the cause or bring the image or information to us through space/time. This new understanding creates 180 degree about face, so to speak, which would allow light to be at the eye as we look out at the real world. It would be impossible if the eyes were afferent. You just can't seem to visualize why this does not violate physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Buh???

You just got through writing:

So compare what you wrote several posts back:

I have no idea why he changed it to say that we would see the Sun turned on instantly.

With what you just wrote now:

He himself realized that we would have to see the Sun turned on instantly

So, WHICH IS IT?

It has to be his later version: the one you can't wrap your head around. The other version wouldn't work.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has to be his later version: the one you can't wrap your head around.

Then why did you say you had no idea why he made this change?

[davidm]

The fact is, YOU changed the text to make it the OPPOSITE of what he said in the authentic text. We all know this. Whether you changed it deliberately, or you stupidly rewrote his original words because you didn't know what he was trying to say, is mostly irrelevant. His stuff is gibberish anyway, so it is not surprising if -- oops! -- you rewrote it to say something the opposite of what he was trying to say!