A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Kael

The real tragedy of all this is that this is completely superfluous to his desired conclusion, and that already established and well-supported models of vision, mental processes, and language already lend themselves to such a conclusion. Light transduced into electrical signals that are then interpreted by the brain can already be viewed, if one desires, as fallible and perhaps not fully corresponding with external reality. Social constructs imposing on what we see, and thus what we think about it, already has good supporting data. No wankery about non-sense-organ eyes, light, and instant seeing is required.

peacegirl. Read the above very carefully. There is no reason at all to think that efferent vision is required for the type of mental projection and conditioning Lessans posited. The brain and understood visual system are perfectly capable of doing this!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to add one last thing. Seeing that no one is interested at all in anything other than their findings, which are not based on what is observed,

It's astounding you can even make this claim.

We are the ones who have discussed observations. We are the ones who have pointed out how the real world works, experiments that have been done, a multitude of them in fact. We are the ones who have discussed modern technology. You have made zero discussion of any observation. In fact, you've recoiled from doing so, because they have all contradicted your position!

So how can you possibly claim we are not interested in what has been observed?

By the way, what's an image? You said before it's 'that thing we see', but it still exists if we don't look at it. So what is it an image, peacegirl?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
The only observation that questions afferent vision is that an object that is just out of view of the lens but in direct line with it, with no obstructions, should produce a picture on the film if the wavelength is traveling toward the camera because then we know we would be getting a delayed picture. This is in direct contradiction to the moons of Jupiter experiment. .

This is a contradiction and does not proove anything. If it is out of view it cannot be in a direct line with no obstructions. This is also a good example of Lessans reasoning and writing. He was completely confused about everything he was trying to say.

If the camera produces a delayed image, it supports the 'Moons of Jupiter' observation.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, just stick to "Viola! We see!" It's totally stupid, but still not as stupid as the self-contradictory stuff you are coming up with. You just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.

Oh shit, now she's going to start useing pick and shovel analogies, Thanks a lot Davidm.

On second thought that might be even more appropriate considering all the manure she's been spreading on this thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

I would just like to remind everyone about the roots of this whole rigamarole of 'efferent' and 'afferent' vision: Lessans, in order to support some of the ideas he pens, requires a device by which descriptors (such as "beautiful" or "ugly") do not correspond to directly observed reality, but rather are 'conditioned' in people. It needs to be the case that we think person A is beautiful and person B is ugly because of this conditioning, not because of any actually observed features of person A or B. Thus, the eyes are not sense organs, and we "see" by projecting this conditioning outward, not by collecting external data. Problem solved.

The real tragedy of all this is that this is completely superfluous to his desired conclusion, and that already established and well-supported models of vision, mental processes, and language already lend themselves to such a conclusion. Light transduced into electrical signals that are then interpreted by the brain can already be viewed, if one desires, as fallible and perhaps not fully corresponding with external reality. Social constructs imposing on what we see, and thus what we think about it, already has good supporting data. No wankery about non-sense-organ eyes, light, and instant seeing is required.

This topic ends up taking up most of the thread only because it is so obviously wrong, so completely unsupported and indefensible, and peacegirl is so bizarrely insistent that it not only could be correct, but it must be. The fact that the rest of Lessans' Golden Age Prophesy could carry on completely intact without it is just delicious irony icing on the absurdity cake.

Thankyou I appreciate the backup, I just wish I could remember when I posted these same ideas about psychological conditioning. Part of the irony is that Peacegirl is exibiting a similar kind of psychological conditioning with Lessans ideas in the book, and that conditioning seems to be unshakeably rooted in her brain, so much so that nothing has been able to get past it or displace it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to add one last thing. Seeing that no one is interested at all in anything other than their findings, which are not based on what is observed, it makes me think this is pseudo-science, the very science you all despise. Isn't that ironic that you are now in the position of the religious fundamentalists that you can't stand.

You think what is pseudo-science?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl. Read the above very carefully. There is no reason at all to think that efferent vision is required for the type of mental projection and conditioning Lessans posited. The brain and understood visual system are perfectly capable of doing this!

I wish it was that easy because I am beginning to realize how tough it is to challenge what is believed to have already been proven.

[LadyShea]

It is that easy. Lessans very well might have made a 100% accurate observation regarding conditioning and projection of values on what we see, yet made in a mistake when trying to explain the physical mechanism due to his lack of understanding of neuroscience (which, at the time, was in its infancy).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You think what is pseudo-science?

It makes me realize that emotion runs high when something considered fact is challenged. And emotion can cloud objectivity. Therefore what appears to be scientific can actually be pseudo-scientific.

[LadyShea]

Therefore what appears to be scientific can actually be pseudo-scientific.

Yes, the definition of pseudoscience is basically "Unsupported and/or irrational bullshit framed in a way that sounds like it might be scientifically valid".

What exact line of argument are you thinking is pseudoscience is what I was asking. Do you think all of physics is wrong?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is that easy. Lessans very well might have made a 100% accurate observation regarding conditioning and projection of values on what we see, yet made in a mistake when trying to explain the physical mechanism due to his lack of understanding of neuroscience (which, at the time, was in its infancy).

Seeing patterns does not prove him wrong. If his observations turn out to be correct, they are correct for all time and would not be contingent upon the latest findings in neuroscience.

[LadyShea]

And if his observation regarding conditioning was correct but his posited supporting explanation (efferent vision) was incorrect, what then?

It is possible to make an accurate observation then make a mistake in the explanation of how that happens you know.

Many, many people made the observation that apples fall down towards Earth and offered possible explanations/hypotheses, but Newton is the one who offered the best explanation for that, gravity, so is the one remembered today.

That doesn't mean the others made inaccurate observations, they just didn't offer the best explanations for it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, the definition of pseudoscience is basically "Unsupported and/or irrational bullshit framed in a way that sounds like it might be scientifically valid".

What exact line of argument are you thinking is pseudoscience is what I was asking. Do you think all of physics is wrong?

Of course not. The only thing I am challenging is afferent vision. If it turns out that Lessans is right, then that is the only thing that is affected. I do not believe the Earth would burn up, or any of the other catastrophic events that were mentioned. The speed of light remains the same as well as all of the successful technologies that are based on light in order to work. I have a tremendous appreciation for scientists who are helping us to learn more about our world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And if his observation regarding conditioning was correct but his posited supporting explanation (efferent vision) was incorrect, what then?

It is possible to make an accurate observation then make a mistake in the explanation of how that happens you know.

Many, many people made the observation that apples fall down towards Earth and offered possible explanations/hypotheses, but Newton is the one who offered the best explanation for that, gravity, so is the one remembered today.

That doesn't mean the others made inaccurate observations, they just didn't offer the best explanations for it.

I really don't care which direction the eyes see. Like Spacemonkey said, it's not worth it if people refuse to study his other findings. Although I don't believe that science has it right, in the spirit of the book, I'm willing to move on.

[LadyShea]

I really don't care which direction the eyes see. Like Spacemonkey said, it's not worth it if people refuse to study his other findings.

As I said several times, this is going to be the sticking point, because his ideas on sight and time are just too improbable, and anyone with a scientifically bent mind is going to focus on that.

With the no free will, conditioning, blame, even the death discovery, there is much less hard science and mountains of data working against you...these are much more philosophical discussions

[LadyShea]

And you won't really be able to move on here, because this discussion has cemented Lessans as a crank and you as a True Believer to most of the participants.

You may find you get a better reception if you edit the book and present it without the sight stuff on your own site or blog or whatever you are working on.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to add one last thing. Seeing that no one is interested at all in anything other than their findings, which are not based on what is observed, it makes me think this is pseudo-science, the very science you all despise. Isn't that ironic that you are now in the position of the religious fundamentalists that you can't stand.

But our findings are based on what is observed. And you have offered no contrary findings or observations at all. The only pseudo-science here is efferent vision. The only religious fundamentalist here is yourself. You should be ashamed of posting such an absurd and unsupported accusation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no way that seeing in real time will ever be confirmed with this logic because there are definite inconsistencies. I'm not purposely trying to confuse anyone, I'm just saying that there's a piece of the puzzle that's missing based on Lessans' observations.

I've been asking you to follow through the implications of your own beliefs about light and physics. And so far they show that these beliefs make efferent vision impossible. I've given you all the pieces of the puzzle. So you need to work out which part(s) you need to reject for efferent vision or real-time photography to be possible. If you cannot reconcile efferent vision with your own beliefs about light, then the rational thing to do is to either reject efferent vision or work out which of your beliefs about light are wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that the knowledge science has regarding light is going to logically conclude that we are seeing the past due to the finite speed of light.

So if you are going to continue claiming otherwise, you need to work out exactly how much of the accepted science of light and physics you need to reject in order to make efferent vision possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only observation that questions afferent vision is that an object that is just out of view of the lens but in direct line with it, with no obstructions, should produce a picture on the film if the wavelength is traveling toward the camera because then we know we would be getting a delayed picture. This is in direct contradiction to the moons of Jupiter experiment. You are trying to get me to concede based on your logic of how light works, and I will fail every time. But that still doesn't mean Lessans was wrong. There's just another element to all of this that hasn't been considered, and I can't provide it at this time.

What you ask for here is exactly what the Hubble pictures already provide. And there are no observations contradicting the moons of Jupiter experiment. You are merely predicting (on faith) that there could be.

The logic of how light works that is causing you trouble is not just mine. It is also yours. You are having trouble due to what you have agreed to about how light works. So if you want to maintain efferent vision, you need to work out how much of this basic science you will have to reject. At the moment you keep trying to agree with as much of the science as you can, only to then run straight into a wall of contradictions. It follows then, that you will have to reject a great deal of the basic science of light for efferent vision to be possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I said about traveling (or meant to say) is that photons from the Sun are in a constant stream. But when it comes to objects and the eyes it's a different story because the object has to be in the camera's field of view (unless a mirror is being used which doesn't negate the premise of real time seeing), which gives us another clue as to what could be going on. I want to end this conversation for now. These are clues to a different way of looking at our reality if it turns out that Lessans is right. I just hope that you don't use my inability to resolve these inconsistencies and lose interest in the rest of his findings.

Unacceptable. My questions and examples do not disagree with the fact that photons are arriving in a constant stream. That is not in question. You still need to follow through on the implications of your own claims to see how efferent vision/real-time photography is completely impossible given what is known about the physics and behaviour of light.

Here are your current answers to my questions. Note that due to the number of times you've reversed yourself on Q4, I currently have no answer to that question:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?
Light

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?
At the film.

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?
The wavelengths.

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?
?

5. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?
Of course not.

6. Can light travel faster than light?
No.

7. Is wavelength a property of light?
Yes.

8. Can light travel without any wavelength?
No.

9. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?
Objects reflect light.

10. What does a reflection consist of?
Light.

11. What does light consist of?
Photons.

12. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?
Yes.

Feel free to change any of these if you like. But given these answers, you still need to address the following examples. Your previous answer (that nothing bounces off the object and heads towards the camera) is inconsistent with your agreement that this is what defines the color of the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, given your current answers I have three stories of light for you to consider.

Story 1: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains red light which travels towards the ball. The ball is red, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our red light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this red light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the red light arrives and this red light hits the film resulting in a red photograph of the red ball.

Do you have any problems with this story?

Story 2: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains blue light which travels towards the ball. The ball is blue, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our blue light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this blue light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the blue light arrives and this blue light hits the film resulting in a blue photograph of the blue ball.

Do you have any problems with this story?

Story 3: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains red light which travels towards the ball. The ball is red, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our red light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. However, the ball changes color from red to blue immediately after reflecting this red light towards the camera (and therefore before our red light gets to the camera). So the ball was red when the red light hit it and bounced off towards the camera, but is blue (i.e. has begun absorbing red light and reflecting only blue light) during the time this previously reflected red light is in transit between the ball and the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this red light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the red light arrives and this red light hits the film resulting in a red photograph of the blue ball.

Where does this story go wrong, according to your version of what is happening?

You have said that:

1. The color of the image is determined by the wavelength of light at the camera.

2. That light has previously travelled to the camera from the object.

3. The wavelength of that light will be determined by the absorptive properties of the object at the time that light struck and bounced off it.

4. The wavelength of that light will also match the absorptive properties of the object at the time that light reaches the camera.

But these claims are inconsistent for any case where the object has different absorptive properties for the earlier time when the light bounced off the object compared to the present time when the photograph is actually taken. Points (3) and (4) are not consistent, and this is a big fat contradiction right in the middle of your account of real-time photography.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But our findings are based on what is observed. And you have offered no contrary findings or observations at all. The only pseudo-science here is efferent vision. The only religious fundamentalist here is yourself. You should be ashamed of posting such an absurd and unsupported accusation.

She has no shame; she's a squawking, simpering, arrogant ignoramus.

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, the definition of pseudoscience is basically "Unsupported and/or irrational bullshit framed in a way that sounds like it might be scientifically valid".

LOL, I couldn't have said it better. I should add that there are many other examples of pseudoscience that will probably never come to light, because most have become a way of life, cast in cement, hardwired...

The double helix that's supposed to depict genes, for example...

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Rickoshay75

LOL, I couldn't have said it better. I should add that there are many other examples of pseudoscience that will probably never come to light, because most have become a way of life, cast in cement, hardwired...

The double helix that's supposed to depict genes, for example...

Hi peaceg ... uh, I mean Rickoshay75.

Ye Gods, you're well on your way to proving your total ignorance of that which you write. Congratulations!

You do know that we've observed DNA molecules and their double-helical construction, do you not?

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Hi peaceg ... uh, I mean Rickoshay75.

Ye Gods, you're well on your way to proving your total ignorance of that which you write. Congratulations!

Takes one to know one.

[Dragar]

And the crackpottery of peacegirl grows.

[Rickoshay75]

Originally Posted by Dragar

And the crackpottery of peacegirl grows.

...and the outrageous persecution

[The Lone Ranger]

Riiight.

Meanwhile, here's an actual photograph of a DNA molecule. (85,000X magnification, scanning electron microscope)