A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

So let's recap:

a.) your model of sight is flatly contradicted by everything we know about the physiology of sight

b.) by your own admission, you will not make any serious effort to actually learn about the physiology of sight [a note for the ignorant; there's a difference between "anatomy and "physiology" -- not that you know very much about the anatomy of sight, either]

c.) your model of sight is also flatly contradicted by some of the best-supported and most thoroughly-verified of physical laws

d.) by your own admission, you're not going to concern yourself with this inconvenient fact, either

e.) apart from the problems already mentioned, several of the most important claims of your model are demonstrably false

f.) this is yet another inconvenient fact that you've declared your intention to ignore

But we are the ones who're being dogmatic, close-minded, and willfully ignorant.

What an ego you have!

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am a humanist and an existentialist and I am totally in awe of and passionate about exploring the world and the Universe and all its wonders. I don't need spirituality, I have people to talk to and experiences to have and things to learn.

Just don't stray into nonconformity, someone may call you a denier.

[LadyShea]

I am a noncomformist in many areas, Jerome.

[LadyShea]

Why would you so quickly throw this book to the wayside if there was even the slightest possibility that his claims could be correct? I don't get it.

The portrayal of relationships and marriage in the New World are totally repugnant, for one thing. But you don't get that either.

[Vivisectus]

For starters, let me say that your responses about sight are becoming rather desperate and a little unhinged. Information is being transported by nothing in your model, which is a rather amazing feat not hitherto thought possible in the world of physics.

You then say that we see the light, but it is not the light that registers on the retina, only the eye does react to it, and... and what? We see the light directly, but we do not register it on the retina and send impulses to the brain, which in turn interprets it?

What else do the tiny little dots on your screen do except emit light?

I think you need to re-think your responses and set them out more clearly.

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But justification IS necessary Vivisectus. Justification may begin long before someone uses it to hurt someone, so it's not clearly seen, but that doesn't change the fact that conscience needs a justification to cause harm. If there is none, conscience will not allow someone to act on what they may be contemplating. The knowledge that you would be blamed, if caught, is one of the justifications that allows someone to go ahead with what they are planning to do. It's not the only justification, but it is a valid one.

Please re-read my point about firemen being a condition for fires. Why is that patently nonsense, and is your statement an undeniable truth that should be accepted on your say-so alone?

Because he isn't wrong, and you so quickly read Chapter Two and dismissed his findings. You are wrong Vivisectus. His 3 pillars are strong and his structure is sound. I am not even sure if anyone here knows what the two-sided equation even is. That's how interested you all are.

We have clearly and demonstrably shown that he IS wrong about sight - we have done so in many ways.

And I have shown you several objections to his reasoning elsewhere as well, which you did not deal with. For these reasons, I remain unconvinced.

Because he is correct, that's the only reason I'm emotionally invested in this. Yes, he was my father and he would never have made these huge claims if he didn't know, absolutely and positively, what he had.

So it is not possible for him to make mistakes? Come now. No-one is infallible.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Open-mindedness is a two-way street. It means being open to test new ideas and see if they contain useful things. Can you test the idea that maybe this is not quite the revolutionary philosophical breakthrough that you and your father assumed it was?

I said all along that this knowledge is falsifiable. But I guarantee you that if put to the test, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and this knowledge will be shown to be absolutely undeniable. I suggest that you read the entire book to see how these principles are applied in real life situations. That may help you realize that his 3 premises are rock solid.

Then why did the revolution never happen? His predictions failed. Rationalizing this (or subsequently saying this will happen in the far future when you and I are safely dead) does not change this one jot.

The proof of the pudding has been in the eating for decades now. You just don't like the result, so you keep going over it again and again, hoping that this time the result will be different.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then why did the revolution never happen? His predictions failed. Rationalizing this (or subsequently saying this will happen in the far future when you and I are safely dead) does not change this one jot.

I guess he got the same Wake-Up Call Service that Jesus got. . . .

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

Oh yeah! I forgot! We only have 14 days left until the Rapture begins! For dead certain this time, too, not like those other 2000 years that were clearly unbiblical.

JUDGMENT DAY

'Repent? Me? Cheek! I can't start repenting at my time of life. I'd never get any work done. Anyway,' she added, 'I ain't sorry for most of it.' - Nanny Ogg, Carpe Jugulum

[Doctor X]

CHKEMATE APIESTS!!!!!11!

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because you are seeing something that is not there to be seen, and the image is created in your brain using only the information in light, which Lessans claims is not possible. Also, the whole "conversion to electrical activity" part which you claim is not happening.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

]Wrong. It's all about electrical activity. The senses that get a baby to see is because of the electrical impulses being sent to the brain via incoming information.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? I thought no information is received with the light according to Lessans? I am pretty sure you stated that multiple times, that the information about the image is not carried with the light to be converted to electrical impulses that are conveyed to the brain for interpretation?

There are no signals that contain information about the object that can be used to decode an image, but there obviously is electrical activity going on.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The glowing white light bulb you see on the white screen after staring at the black light bulb figure is called an afterimage. When you focus on the black light bulb, light sensitive photo receptors (whose job it is to convert light into electrical activity) in your retina respond to the incoming light. Other neurons that receive input from these photoreceptors respond as well. As you continue to stare at the black light bulb your photoreceptors become desensitized (or fatigued).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is arguing about this? Why are you using this to make it appear that Lessans is saying something different? This is not fair because it's lying, even if you don't see that it is lying. But this could ruin Lessans all because you think he is discounting science, which he never intended except for one small difference that he could not account for.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did Lessans accept that photoreceptors convert light into electrical impulses that are then sent to the brain?

He didn't specifically state this, but obviously there are electrical impulses that connect the optic nerve to the brain. That's a no brainer.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I understood that his model said nothing is sent to the brain and that electrical impulses were not a part of vision. Did I misunderstand?

If I misunderstood please offer Lessan's model including how light converted to electrical impulses works if vision is efferent.

How can the brain see anything if there isn't an electrical impulse? There is a connection, in other words, that must occur. If there wasn't, it would be like crossing over a body of water without a bridge.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Misinterpretation of poor explanations is not lying. If I have misunderstood then perhaps you could offer an improved explanation?

I agree. I hope people recognize that I'm not lying either, or being willfully ignorant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, this is not utter nonsense. Without the understanding of how the brain is able to convince the observer that beauty and ugliness actually exist because they see this beauty and ugliness with their very eyes (not understanding how the brain can project values onto undeniable substance which requires efferent vision to be able to accomplish this feat), people will continue to believe that beautiful and ugly people actually exist. This is an injustice to the human race because half of it believes it is physiognomically inferior in actuality. If there isn't a scientific way to show that this is not the case; that it is more than just as personal descriptor because of how a standard is created and used by the brain to see what doesn't exist, people will think it's unfortunate, but true, that people are born inferior, and people will continue to believe they are inferior in value. This is a big deal and has caused one of the most serious injustices of all time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have missed the point. Shea is merely pointing out that you could abandon the whole section on sight and simply keep the idea that passing on the modern narrow criteria for beauty, and passing on the idea that possessing this beauty makes you somehow more valuable, is a rather bad thing to do.

The reason for this would be that we think that it creates an unattainable standard for too many people, and causes hurt and low self esteem in millions, all for a more or less arbitrarily decided norm - after all we know our conception of physical beauty has changed hugely over the centuries - that is not of a lot of practical value.

A view that is shared by a fair few people, and something that feminist groups have been saying for many decades now.

No need for tortured sentences like "the brain can project values onto undeniable substance which requires efferent vision to be able to accomplish this feat". No need for eyes that work by magic. Just some good ole common sense.

This is not magic Vivisectus. This has everything to do with an observed phenomenon. I think it will be very difficult for feminist groups to eliminate these standards altogether unless there is a scientific basis for doing so. Of course, their effort is very noble and I hope they keep on trying, just as people are trying to prevent human abuses, war, and crime.

In addition, it's not just words like beautiful and ugly that create low self-esteem. It is words like intelligent/unintelligent, educated/uneducated, brilliant, mediocre, etc. These words do not reflect reality, yet they are used to stratify people into layers of value. All these words are coming to an end because they don't accurately symbolize what is real.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, of course you can't!

THEN WHAT IS HE CLAIMING? WHAT IS THE MECHANISM BY WHICH WE SEE, ACCORDING TO THE INFALLIBLE ONE?

Remember when I asked you this question? Your response?

I DON'T KNOW.

The issue is that the eye is NOT efferent, it has been demonstrated to be afferent, and real-time seeing is impossible even in principal because of the laws of physics!

The reason you say this is because you believe that light would have to be instantaneous, the world would implode because we'd all fall into a black hole, and all of physics would have to be re-written. None of that is true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So let me get this straight:

a.) your model of sight is flatly contradicted by everything we know about the physiology of sight

What is flatly contradicted? I said the only difference is that sight is in reverse, using the same physiology that has been documented.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

b.) by your own admission, you will not make any serious effort to actually learn about the physiology of sight [a note for the ignorant; there's a difference between "anatomy and "physiology" -- not that you know very much about the anatomy of sight, either]

I said that I want to make an effort, but I need someone to explain in detail what is taking place.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

c.) your model of sight is also flatly contradicted by some of the best-supported and most thoroughly-verified of physical laws

Again, what is flatly contradicted? I mentioned that even though we don't know exactly how the brain may be looking out instead of interpreting what is coming in, that doesn't mean there isn't a mechanism. Is there something we can pinpoint in the brain that gives us consciousness? All we can do is look at Pet scans, but we don't have all the answers.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

d.) by your own admission, you're not going to concern yourself with this inconvenient fact, either

I told you that for the most part there is nothing contradictory in what Lessans version is hypothesizing versus the present model. The only thing that is of concern in the present model is whether the brain is interpreting the impulses, instead of the impulses allowing the brain to see in real time. Once again, if you tell me that this is already proved wrong, or this would change the laws of physics (which I don't see), then you'll need to show me where this version is foolproof.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

e.) apart from the problems already mentioned, several of the most important claims of your model are demonstrably false

Show me, and tell me that there is absolutely no room for another theory. If that's the case, let's stop the conversation.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

f.) this is yet another inconvenient fact that you've declared your intention to ignore

I'm not ignoring anything. Facts are facts. But if there is anything in the body of proof that contains a leap of faith, no matter how logical and correct it appears, then there is room to challenge this model.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But we are the ones who're being dogmatic, close-minded, and willfully ignorant.

You really have an ego the size of a planet, don't you?

I told you I would like to have someone orally explain the present model. Reading it without help is going to be hard for me. But the question remains: What is in the present model of sight that absolutely negates Lessans' hypothesis? I've said numerous times that if you believe this model is airtight, then we have to end the discussion because all you will do is make me look more and more like a fool. I don't have a big ego Ranger. But it takes a very big ego to know one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, it is YOU who are repeating and repeating and repeating what your idiot father indoctrinated you with. What I am repeating is good, objective, well-confirmed, well-documented, peer-reviewed, publicly accessible SCIENCE that has been painstakingly built up and checked and double-checked and triple-checked and ad infinitum-checked over centuries. It is YOU who are the dogmatist who refuses to deal with reality, and not I, or any of your interlocutors here. You PROJECT onto others precisely your own failings. It is YOU who cannot stand that you might not be right: in fact, you ARE not right; you and Lessans are WRONG, as has been REPEATEDLY DEMONSTRATED to you; not ASSERTED, as you and Lessans do to us, but DEMONSTRATED. It was DEMONSTRATED by The Lone Ranger in his essay that you admit YOU REFUSE TO READ.

David, the fact that you thought that the statement, "he was compelled, of his own free will," is a contradiction, shows me how absolutely confused you are. The fact that you say that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is a tautology shows me how absolutely confused you are. The fact that you give some strange definition of determinism that you believe supercede's Lessans' accurate definition of why man's will is not free shows me how absolutely confused you are. The fact that all you do is repeatedly say that everything in science has been demonstrated, and that there is no room for an honest error in the mapping of the brains connection with the eyes, shows me how absolutely confused you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We cannot see rainbows if this is true peacegirl. Rainbows are light. They are not an object, they are not fixed in place. If the statement you just made is true we cannot see images on a TV screen because they are light, there is nothing else there. You cannot read the words on your computer monitor because they are light, there is nothing else there.

We have been trying to get you to explain how you can make statements like the above, then state that there is no discrepancy between Lessans' model and observed reality.

So, explain how we see light (a rainbow) if we can't see light and if the light doesn't bring information to our brain?

What difference does it make whether we are seeing the rainbow in real time, or interpreting the wavelengths in delayed time? If Lessans is correct, we see the real world, rainbows in particular, through the spectrum of light, which is a necessary condition of sight. The only difference is that we see it as it is, not as an interpretation. You're bringing things into this that have no impact on his [hypothesis].

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've done this before and it works. The brain has a way of filling in the gaps, but where does this prove afferent over efferent vision? That's what I'd like to know.

I thought we only saw things as they really are, through an undeniable screen of reality. Why is the brain filling in data that is not there?

So did you ignore or not see my other comment on the effect of other senses on qualities such a beauty. I especially think that touch is a sense that reveals beauty or ugliness. You know, lumps where it should be smooth, soft when it should be harder, that kind of thing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't know who I'm talking to online and whether the people here are scientists. As far as I'm concerned, they are not acting like scientists at all. They are acting immature in that they resort to such low tactics of name calling and degradation, that they don't show any professionalism. I am losing respect for those who have brought me to this point of frustration, not because of their legitimate questions, but because of their mean spiritedness.

The most insulting person on this thread is YOU. You insult people with virtually every line you write. To take a prime example: The Lone Ranger has DEMONSTRATED for you, in a detailed essay, HOW sight works: completely contrarty to Lessans' claims. AND YOU WON'T EVEN READ IT. You not only accept your own ignorance, you revel in it.

You insult the intelligence of everyone here, and you insult the scientific community and the scientific enterprise that has been investigating this stuff for hundreds of years; you won't read the actual explanation for how we see, yet you badger people to read your father's swill. Then you claim that the reason people don't accept what he says is because they have not read his book; but I have read it, for kicks, and it's garbage. All one has to do is read idiocies like his claim that if the sun were turned on now, we would see it immediately, but not see the person standing next to us for eight minutes, to know what trash this is. (BTW, HOW does that work again? How is it possible that one would see the sun immediately, but not one's neighbor for eight minutes, given that the source light (the sun) and the reflected light is the same goddamned light? You never even tried to answer that, did you? Another example of how you insult people with every post.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no signals that contain information about the object that can be used to decode an image...

Really? And you know this HOW?

... but there obviously is electrical activity going on.

No shit! And what is that activity for?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree. I hope people recognize that I'm not lying either, or being willfully ignorant.

You have repeatedly lied and displayed willful ignorance throughout this thread.

You refuse to read the essay on how we see; this is a paradigmatic example of willful ignorance.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason you say this is because you believe that light would have to be instantaneous, the world would implode because we'd all fall into a black hole, and all of physics would have to be re-written. None of that is true.

No, you fuckwit, it's because light is NOT instantaneous.

Please answer this question:

Explain how, if God turned on the sun at noon, per your father's example, we would see it immediately, but not see our neighbors for eight minutes?

Can you explain how and why this would be the case?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that I want to make an effort, but I need someone to explain in detail what is taking place.

He explains it in detail in the essay that you refuse to read.

Stop lying. You have no interest in learning anything. You want to con gullible people into shelling out $39.95 or whatever it is for this crap book, so that you can make money off of saps.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is in the present model of sight that absolutely negates Lessans' hypothesis?

Everything.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, the fact that you thought that the statement, "he was compelled, of his own free will," is a contradiction, shows me how absolutely confused you are. The fact that you say that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is a tautology shows me how absolutely confused you are. The fact that you give some strange definition of determinism that you believe supercede's Lessans' accurate definition of why man's will is not free shows me how absolutely confused you are. The fact that all you do is repeatedly say that everything in science has been demonstrated, and that there is no room for an honest error in the mapping of the brains connection with the eyes, shows me how absolutely confused you are.

Listen, you stupid little liar, I have NOT ever said that "everything in science has been demonstrated." As for the rest, you, and your father, know NOTHING about the philosophical literature on free will; you (and he) are as ignorant of that, as you are of science.

Now then: How is that, if the sun were turned on NOW, people on earth would see it immediately, but would be unable to see their neighbors for eight minutes?

We are all DYING to be educated by you, Peacegirl; and since you say you are here to educate us to a "revolution in human thought," how about you just answer the simple question above, for starters?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't think she's crazy Goliath, I think she has some problems maybe that would benefit from professional help. Her emotional investment in this doesn't seem healthy.

LadyShea, if I need profressional health because I'm invested in a particular model of sight that I think is absolutely correct, then you do too, because of your investment in a model of sight that you believe is absolutely correct. The only difference is that your definition is accepted as fact; therefore, it is assumed that my definition is wrong. This only proves how mixed up everybody really is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Cranks of a feather flock together. . . .

--J.D.

Yes, and cranks who think they have all the answers and therefore attack anyone who disagrees with their logic, flock together.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, isn't that precious! Her royal highness finally bestirred herself to Google the word "photon." Too bad she doesn't know how photons behave, though she did manage to spell the word correctly. If she troubled herself to learn what a photon is, and how it is observed to behave, she would learn that her father's claims are gobbledygook.

Once again davidm, you are pulling in all kinds of strawmen because you can't face the fact that your present knowledge isn't as reliable as you thought.