A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see because light allows us to. We are able to see the external world as long as the object we are viewing is large enough and bright enough for the conditions to be favorable for us to see them.

Guess what, Peacegirl? This is not an explanation of how we are able to see things.

The first sentence is correct: "We see because light allows us to." The crucial question is, how does light allow us to see? That is, what is the mechanism by which light allows us to see?

And we know what the mechanism is: it's the mechanism that the author rejects. Since he rejects the well-known (and factually correct) explanation of how light "allows us to see," then he (and you) are obligated to provide an alternative mechanism for how light allows us to see.

So, What is that mechanism, and what tests have you or the author conducted to verify the validity of your theory? We're all ears! (Thank goodness ears, unlike eyes, are a sense organ! )

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are getting confused by what he means by photograph taken. This has to do with words, which I have not gotten into yet. That's why I said all along that we need to go step by step. Of course you can feel the warmth of the sun, because that warmth you are feeling is due to your sensing this warmth as the nerve endings carry that external stimuli to your brain.

Right, and this is also why you can fucking see. The things that make your skin warm, and the things that enable you to see, are the same fucking things: they are photons. Some sense organs interpret photons as "warmth," and other sense organs (commonly called the eyes) interpret photons reflected off of objects, or photons directly generated by some source, like the sun, as images.

What part of this kindergarten-level tutorial do you and the author find confusing?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I need to add that I use the word remember a lot, but it does not mean that what is being said is patently ridiculous. It's just to let those reading remember the most important points because it's so easy to lose one's train of thought when the concepts being explained are so new.

The clause, "nothing reaches the optic nerve," is not a concept, new or otherwise. It is balderdash.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you are mixing up the sense of touch with the sense of sight. The two are not related.

For fuck's sake, I am not mixing up anything. I am trying to explicate what the fucking author wrote, to see if some sense can be made of it. None can!

He wrote (and I quoted it earlier) something to the effect that there are only four sense organs (the eye, he ludicrously and incorrectly claims, is not a sense organ) and that the information from those four sense organs goes to the brain to implant a visual "photograph," whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. So I am not mixing up anything, this is what the author said. Have you read the book?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl,

If you want to discuss Chapter 2, do it. Whether you recognize it or not your explanation for your failure to get on with that presentation (i.e. because other people keep posting about other stuff) is a way of blaming them for your failure to do that which you claim you intend to do. Ignore the nattering nabobs of negativity and get on with your presentation of Chapter 2.

Sincerely,
Angakuk

Can we do a vote? Who wants me to post Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation (I refuse to do a synopsis) and who wants to continue talking about Chapter Four: Words, not Reality? I don't want to mix the two together because it's too much to deal with.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No we wouldn't because the image is not being reflected in the light itself. The object is being reflected by the light...

Er, no. It's the other way around. Light does not reflect an object. An object reflects light.

... but the light does not carry the image without the presence of the object that is reflecting that light.

Of course it fucking does! The photons from a distant galaxy are present in your eyes; the object remains where it is: distant!

Huh? I don't know where you got that from. There is not one ounce of disrespect shown between the sexes in this book. That just shows me how easy it is to misinterpret what is being said.

Can you not even read plain English? I did not say that the book showed "disrespect between the genders." I wrote what the author himself said: that "differing world slides (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean) create "disrespect between the genders." That's what the author wrote.

Did you read the book?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can we do a vote? Who wants me to post Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation (I refuse to do a synopsis) and who wants to continue talking about Chapter Four: Words, not Reality? I don't want to mix the two together because it's too much to deal with.

Hey, here is an idea: why don't you discuss the post by ceptimus, to which I linked you twice, which empirically proves that we see objects by reflected light, and we see them as they are at some time in the past, owing to the finite propagation of light waves?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

For fuck's sake, I am not mixing up anything. I am trying to explicate what the fucking author wrote, to see if some sense can be made of it. None can!

He wrote (and I quoted it earlier) something to the effect that there are only four sense organs (the eye, he ludicrously and incorrectly claims, is not a sense organ) and that the information from those four sense organs goes to the brain to implant a visual "photograph," whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. So I am not mixing up anything, this is what the author said. Have you read the book?

There is no phrase in the entire book that says 'visual photograph'. I told you that this has to do with words and how we photograph the relation between the word and the object that word represents. I'm going to say this again, I will not accept your cursing. Please don't say 'fucking author' or use other expletives in our conversation, or I'll ignore your posts as well.

[davidm]

Also, we're waiting for you to explain how light enables us to see, if not by the mechanism that you and the author reject? What is the specific mechanism, Peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, here is an idea: why don't you discuss the post by ceptimus, to which I linked you twice, which empirically proves that we see objects by reflected light, and we see them as they are at some time in the past, owing to the finite propagation of light waves?

I don't know how this proves anything. I think you're joking, right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Also, we're waiting for you to explain how light enables us to see, if not by the mechanism that you and the author reject? What is the specific mechanism, Peacegirl?

I don't know the exact mechanism except to say that if he is right (which I believe he is), all the structures in the eye and the brain itself still have a function. The only thing that changes is the direction in which we see the external world. The belief that the brain interprets images from the past so that we never see in real time is false. I will post the next section which was how Lessans came to his conclusions. You may balk at this too, and I understand why. This whole idea of the eyes not being a sense organ sounds absolutely absurd. We all grew up thinking this was an undisputed fact. I'll begin on the next post.

[peacegirl]

cont...Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

The knowledge revealed thus far
although also hidden behind the door marked ‘Man Does Not Have
Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as being of significance.
Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense
organ, that our scientists got confused because of it, and that a dog
cannot identify his master from a picture. What does mean a great
deal to me — when the purpose of my discovery is to remove all
evil from the world (which word is symbolic of any kind of hurt
that exists in human relation) — is to demonstrate how certain
words have absolutely no foundation in reality, yet they have
caused more suffering and unhappiness than can be readily
imagined. Let me explain.

One of the greatest forms of injustice still exists because we
have never understood our true relationship with the external world
which is related to what we think we see with our eyes. What is
this injustice? It is to be judged an inferior production of the
human race because of physiognomic differences, and this
judgment takes place the moment we call one person beautiful and
another one ugly, handsome and homely, good looking and bad
looking.

“But I have been taught that sticks and stones will break my
bones but names or words will never hurt me. Isn’t that a true
statement?”

Actually, I’m not referring to those names. To be called the N
word, or any name used in an effort to make a person feel inferior,
is actually not a hurt if this does not lower ourselves in our own
eyes because we allow for the source. But when we believe we are
inferior productions because of words that have told us so, the
expression, ‘Sticks and stones will break my bones…’ is
completely erroneous since we have been unconsciously hurt. This
unconsciousness has its source in the failure to understand how the
eyes function which is revealed by the fact that they are included
as one of the five senses.

When someone is judged an inferior
production of the human race by others as well as himself, all
because of words that have no relation to reality although he sees
this inferiority as if it is a definite part of the real world, then he is
seriously hurt and God is going to put a permanent end to the use
of these words. What makes someone remark — ‘It’s a darn
shame she got killed, she was such a pretty girl’ — indicating that
the tragedy was greater because of this prettiness. What makes
parents give their children cosmetic surgery if not to increase their
physiognomic value?

As a consequence of the belief that one
person is more beautiful or handsome than another, which places
a greater value on certain features, many people will go to great
lengths to correct their so-called imperfections by getting breast
implants and eyelid surgery, while others will have nose operations
and squeeze their teeth together, all in the name of ‘beauty.’

These operations are not without risk yet many people are willing
to have these cosmetic procedures because they believe it will
improve the quality of their lives by feeling better about
themselves and by attracting someone whom they feel has more to
offer; and the doctor who must earn a living justifies his
professional advice on the undeniable grounds that they will
definitely be more attractive when their teeth are together and their
nose straightened.

After all, what makes someone good looking,
cute, adorable, lovely, gorgeous, beautiful, or handsome if not for
the belief that certain features or combination of features contain
this value called beauty. And isn’t it also true that we see these
differences with our very eyes? “We do,” you might reply, “but
even if we differ as to who is the most beautiful, the real truth is
that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.”

This comment does not
reveal the truth at all; instead it reveals our confusion still more
since this expression does not negate the existence of ugliness but
only observes a difference of opinion regarding the type of features
that constitute what is beautiful and ugly. To prove what I mean,
could you possibly call Miss America ugly, or the Wicked Witch
beautiful? You might disagree with someone as to which girl in a
beauty contest should be judged the winner, but none would be
considered ugly. I then asked my friend this question to clarify my
point.

“Who do you think is more beautiful, Elizabeth Taylor or your
girlfriend?”

“How is it possible to answer your question when beauty is in
the eyes of the beholder? This is just a matter of opinion, not a
fact, and you said these words were symbolic of reality, or gave the
appearance of being so.”

Let me rephrase the question, “In your eyes, do you consider
your girlfriend as beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor?”

“No I don’t.”

“In your eyes, is this an opinion that you are less good looking
than Paul Newman, or a fact?”

“He is an extremely handsome man, and I do consider him
better looking than myself.”

“Who do you consider better looking, Paul Newman or Robert
Redford?”

“I say the latter.”

“Just at that moment another friend overheard the conversation
and replied, “Not in my book. Newman has it all over him.”

“Are you able to see what the expression, ‘beauty is in the eyes
of the beholder’ refers to? There is a difference of opinion as to
who is more handsome in your eyes but once you admit to yourself
that a certain person is prettier than another, then in so far as you’re
concerned this is not an opinion but a fact. Take a look at this
picture. It is of a girl who has an aquiline nose, buck teeth, a
receding hair line, heavy bow legs, sagging breasts, a projected rear
end, a hair lip, and she lisps and stutters. Now compare her with
Elizabeth Taylor and tell me the truth. In your eyes, which one is
more beautiful?”

“Are you trying to be funny? Elizabeth Taylor naturally, but
this is a fact, she is more beautiful. These differences exist and are
a definite part of the real world because I see them with my very
eyes.”

“Differences exist, this is true, and you do see them with your
very eyes, but the words we have been looking through are not and
because these symbols are a terrible hurt they must come to an end.
You will soon have verified that when we use the expression,
‘beauty is in the eyes of the beholder’ what we are saying in reality
is that beauty is only a word existing in the brain of the beholder.
To be classified as homely is the greatest injustice, yet every time
we use the whole range of words expressing good looks we do that
very thing.

You will soon understand how these words developed
and how they fooled even the most analytic minds into believing
they were true descriptions of reality. The truth is that nobody is
beautiful or ugly, just different. However, the first thing I must do
is demonstrate exactly why they are words only, not reality, and
why they must become obsolete otherwise you will classify this
kind of evil as one of those unfortunate things, like being born
without legs, arms, or eyes.”

“I agree with you so far,” my friend replied, “but let’s assume
for a moment that you actually convince us that these words are not
symbolic of reality, why should we or others stop using them if
there is greater satisfaction in continuing with them? Just because
you teach us that using certain words, whatever they are, is wrong
because they are a hurt won’t necessarily stop their use.”

“No it won’t, but the basic principle will. God is giving us no
choice in this matter, as you will soon begin to understand.” Let
us get back to our discussion to observe how our brain operates.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how this proves anything. I think you're joking, right?

No, I was being completely serious. The post to which I allude proves that we see by means of reflected light, and it proves that what we see, is an image from the past, because of the finitude of the velocity of light.

Of course you will avoid trying to rebut that post, because you cannot do so.

[peacegirl]

cont...Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste,
touch and smell, but photographs the objects involved which
develops a negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is
incapable of this. When he sees the features of his master without
any accompanying sound or smell he cannot identify because no
photograph was taken. A dog identifies predominantly through his
sense of sound and smell and what he sees is in relation to these
sense experiences, just as we identify most of the differences that
exist through words and names. If the negative plate on which the
relation is formed is temporarily disconnected — in man’s case the
words or names, and in the dog’s case the sounds and smells —
both have a case of amnesia.

This gives conclusive evidence as to
why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes. As we have
seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who
should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing
and smell, temporarily disconnected assuming that no relation was
developed as to his owner’s gait (because this could also be used
to identify), he would actually have amnesia, and even though he
saw with his eyes his master come through the gate he would have
no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having
already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a
movie projector, can recognize at a very early age.

The brain is a
very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape
recorder through our ears and the other three senses, and a camera
through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a
movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded,
they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects
held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently,
since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain all words that are
placed in front of this telescope, words containing every
conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen
of the outside world and if these words do not accurately
symbolize, as with ‘five senses,’ man will actually think he sees
what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe
then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations
that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not
know the words. To understand this better let us observe my
granddaughter learning words.

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees
various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of
differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in
preference to another, or may prefer to play with one toy over
another, but in so far as she is concerned all she sees are a bunch
of objects. As her eyes are focused on a dog I shall repeat the word
dog rapidly in her ear. When she turns away I stop. This will be
continued until she looks for him when hearing the word which
indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object
has been established and a photograph taken. Soon this relation is
formed which makes her conscious of a particular difference that
exists in the external world.

As she learns more and more words
such as cat, horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of
these differences which no one can deny because they are seen
through words or slides that circumscribe accurately these various
bits of substance. This is exactly how we learn words only I am
speeding up the process. Before long she learns house, tree, car,
chair, door, kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth,
eyes, hair, girl, boy, and so on. Until she learns the word cat she
could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a
negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox
cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the
difference has been developed. She also learns the names of
individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan,
Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. My
granddaughter can identify her mother from hundreds and
hundreds of photographs because the difference is a negative that
not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not.

In other
words, as she learns these names and words her brain takes a
picture of the objects symbolized and when she sees these
differences again she projects the word or name, but the brain will
not take any picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these
differences that exist in the external world which are not
identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable
only because they are related to words, names or slides that we
project for recognition. If we would lose certain names or words
we would have amnesia because when we see these ordinarily
familiar differences we are unable to project the words or names
necessary for recognition.

By the same reasoning, the word Chinese develops not only a
negative of differences but of similarities, consequently, when
someone is not acquainted with the differences that exist among
this race he only sees that they resemble each other. But if we
would live among this group and separate them by their individual
names, we would soon see their differences and not their
similarities. Seeing similarities is what takes place when someone
does not learn colors properly and he may be called color blind
when in reality he is word blind. Supposing we were to teach a
child that blue is green and green is blue and then place him in
surroundings where his identification of colors would be tested.
Can you imagine how quickly he would be called color-blind?
This child would argue that the green is blue and the blue is green
while the other children, brought up differently, would reverse the
argument.

If someone gets confused between certain shades of
blue and green, it is only because the relation between colors was
never accurately photographed. In the majority of cases colors are
learned in a haphazard manner and if a blue negative was
developed when looking at a subtle shade of green, he will see blue
just as you would see something blue through blue glasses even
though the object was green. This is equivalent to getting confused
between certain type leaves and trees only because these
differences were not accurately photographed in relation to the
word. For example, if a particular leaf is given a specific name and
another leaf resembling this leaf to a degree but still slightly
different is given a different name, then when the relation is
accurately photographed the person learning the words will never
mistake one for the other. Once children are made to understand
that they are referring to the same bit of substance, regardless of
the different names used to identify it, then there can be no
argument between them. Of course, if a child can’t see a
difference before learning the words, then he is genuinely color
blind.

Let’s take another example. If you were taught one word, orange,
which included within that symbol a grapefruit and tangerine you
would hand me any oneof the three if I asked for an orange, but
when you learn the othertwo words which photographs the
difference then you could not hand me a tangerine or grapefruit if
I asked for an orange. The reason we have a word for the sun
and a word for the moon is because these two bodies are different,
and the reason we have a planet named Earth, one named Saturn,
Venus, etc. is only because these are not one and the same planet
and we have separated them by calling them different names.

However, the reason we do not
call the moon a planet is because we learned it does not function
like one, therefore it does not fall in the same category. Once it is
understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic
nerve even though the pupils dilate and contract according to the
intensity of light, it becomes possible to separate what exists in the
external world from that which is only a negative or word in our
head. The belief in five senses made it possible to imagine light
waves hitting an object and then reflecting an image to the eyes —
for this appears logical — but how is it possible for light to reflect
a value that doesn’t even exist in the external world? In the course
of our children’s development they learn other kinds of words that
form inaccurate relations not only because a judgment of personal
value is given external reality by the symbol itself, but also because
the logic of unconscious syllogistic reasoning confirms the
apparent validity of inaccurate observations. Let me show you
how this was accomplished.

From the time we were small children our relatives, parents,
friends and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and
dislikes regarding things that definitely exist in the external world.
The words beautiful, pretty, cute, adorable, handsome, etc., heard
over and over again with an inflection of pleasure as to someone’s
physical appearance, took a picture of the similarities between this
type of physiognomy and developed negatives which also
contained the degree of feeling experienced.

Similarly, an entire
range of words heard over and over again with an inflection of
displeasure as to someone’s physical characteristics, took a picture
of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed
negatives containing the degree of feeling experienced below this
line of demarcation. As time went on a standard was established
which separated good looks from bad looks using a gradient that
measured someone’s features against a scale of perfection that did
not symbolize reality. Not knowing what the brain was able to do,
we were convinced that one group of similarities that were seen
with our very eyes contained a lesser value than the opposite
similarities.

We were unaware that the brain had reversed the
process by which these negatives were developed and then
projected onto the screen of undeniable differences a value that
existed only in our head. It would not be long before this child
would be conditioned to desire associating with the one type while
avoiding the other, and as he would get older you would not be
able to convince him that an ugly or beautiful person did not exist
as a definite part of the real world, because he has witnessed these
differences with his eyes. The confusion between what is real and
what is not comes from the fact that these words not only describe
real differences that exist in the world, but they also create external
values when there are no such things. I will give you an example
of this by using a movie projector.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know the exact mechanism except to say that if he is right (which I believe he is), all the structures in the eye and the brain itself still have a function. The only thing that changes is the direction in which we see the external world. The belief that the brain interprets images from the past so that we never see in real time is false.

No, it's true. See how satisfying that is, by way of discussion?

You don't know the exact mechanism. And neither does the author, of course, for he does not give an alternative mechanism. The real question, now, is as follows: Given the fact that we know light enters the optic nerve and proceeds to the brain which translates the signals into images (of the past), why do we need to posit an alternative explanation for how we see?

Another question might be: Why do you and the author doubt what everyone knows (how we actually see) in the first place? Particularly when you have neither you nor he has an alternative explanation to the accepted explanation?

Here is my bet: Somewhere in this pile of bilge will be a domga that requires one to see things "as they are without a time delay" and so, to uphold the dogma, the standard knowledge of how we see will simply have to be declared false.

Your author has written a holy book, but unlike some other charlatans like L. Ron Hubbard, he evidently failed to market it properly.

I will post the next section which was how Lessans came to his conclusions. You may balk at this too, and I understand why. This whole idea of the eyes not being a sense organ sounds absolutely absurd. We all grew up thinking this was an undisputed fact. I'll begin on the next post.

[davidm]

I might add further, all these claims about seeing things "as they are" without a time delay is at complete variance with the well-confirmed special theory of relativity, in addition to being wrong for all the other reasons given.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, I was being completely serious. The post to which I allude proves that we see by means of reflected light, and it proves that what we see, is an image from the past, because of the finitude of the velocity of light.

Of course you will avoid trying to rebut that post, because you cannot do so.

No, we see the actual object because of the light that is reflected, but we don't see the past in the light because the image of the object is not transmitted, reflected, or contained in the light as it travels through space and time.

[davidm]

This gives conclusive evidence as to
why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes.

Bird vision.

Wow, just wow. Truly this stuff is like the transcriptions of a maniac ranting on a street corner. Does he talk about fluouridated water later and black helicopters, too?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I might add further, all these claims about seeing things "as they are" without a time delay is at complete variance with the well-confirmed special theory of relativity, in addition to being wrong for all the other reasons given.

Whatever it contradicts, it has to be worked out through the scientific method which includes observation as well as empiricism. Being at a complete variance with a well-confirmed special 'theory' doesn't automatically negate these observations as wrong. That's being biased.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, we see the actual object because of the light that is reflected, but we don't see the past in the light because the image of the object is not transmitted, reflected, or contained in the light as it travels through space and time.

WTF does this mean? First of all, as erimir explained to you, no one says that the image is "in the light." The image is in the head, based on an interpretation of photons that come directly from a source (like the sun) or are reflected off an object. Since light speed is finite, it absolutely follows that we see images of objects as they were in the past, as ceptimusus' discussion (which you have ignored) proves.

[LadyShea]

Light travels so fast that for all practical purposes we see relatively close objects in real time. Light reflected from the moon reaches Earth in 1.3 seconds, and reflected light from objects in your room only take a tiny, tiny fraction of a second.

Is that close enough to a concession to continue the discussion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Bird vision.

Wow, just wow. Truly this stuff is like the transcriptions of a maniac ranting on a street corner. Does he talk about fluouridated water later and black helicopters, too?

You're doing it again. You did not read the entire text. Animals cannot identify certain features by sight alone, therefore it is difficult for them to identify their masters without their sense of smell to help them.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever it contradicts, it has to be worked out through the scientific method which includes observation as well as empiricism. Being at a complete variance with a well-confirmed special 'theory' doesn't automatically negate these observations as wrong. That's being biased.

Holy shit, you idiot, you have neither observations nor a theory, you have mere assertion. You've already admitted that you have no alternative mechanism to explain how we see. You have nothing!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light travels so fast that for all practical purposes we see relatively close objects in real time. Light reflected from the moon reaches Earth in 1.3 seconds, and reflected light from objects in your room only take a tiny, tiny fraction of a second.

Is that close enough to a concession to continue the discussion?

That still doesn't mean that we see even a milisecond from the past because the mechanism by which we see is at odds with the existing theory of sight.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're doing it again. You did not read the entire text. Animals cannot identify certain features by sight alone, therefore it is difficult for them to identify their masters without their sense of smell to help them.

Erm, did you read the link about bird vision?