A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

And you got post 25000 sadie!

[peacegirl]

Darn, I missed the party. Did anyone save me a piece of cake?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't even realize what you are saying do you? I will parse it for you.

When you cannot see an object because you cannot see it, you will not see said object because you cannot see it. Why is this? Because the object is no longer able to be seen.

Seriously, your statement has zero information, you are just repeating "we can we see what we can see because we can see it" using different terms that sound meaningful but explain nothing at all.

You are confused and doing the same thing you did with the greater satisfaction principle, making it sound as if all that it is is a tautology. That is far from the case, just as it is here. We can see what we see when the object is within optical range. The afferent account does not require the object to even exist anymore, let alone be within one's optical range. This is an important distinction; it does not just say we can see because we can see it. That's absurd LadyShea, and you know it. "We are just light detectors" you say. How does this statement prove that the light (that is detected on the retina) is actually being interpreted by the brain as an image? It doesn't. It fits quite nicely into the existing model, but it does not prove conclusively that the existing model is 100% correct.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are confused and doing the same thing you did with the greater satisfaction principle, making it sound as if all that it is is a tautology.

I am not doing anything. It is a tautology as you are stating it. If you add some actual mechanisms to your explanation it would cease being a tautology, but in all this time you've never done so.

You refuse to explain the "mirror image"...what exactly is it? How is it formed? How does it work, exactly? You refuse to account for how light behaves in your model. You've refused to explain what the photoreceptors (rods and cones) actually do to facilitate efferent vision. You refuse to even call them photoreceptors! You say light is a condition, but refuse to explain it's role. Does it need to be at the object? At the eye? Both? YOu refuse to explain how light comes to be located on the surface of camera film in Lessans scenario of the newly ignited Sun

You eventually admitted the satisfaction principle was tautological...did you forget?

[LadyShea]

We can see what we see when the object is within optical range

Tautology, because "optical range" means "able to be seen"! So you just said "We can see what we see when the object is able to be seen."

Once again, using different words to say the same thing is a tautology

"We are just light detectors" you say

I've never said "we are...". I said the eyes are light detectors, yes. I've said cameras are light detectors, yes. Those are true statements. That makes the eyes a sense organ as they use specialized receptor cells to detect stimulus from the outside world just as the other receptor cells do in the other senses.

[LadyShea]

The afferent account does not require the object to even exist anymore, let alone be within one's optical range.

Which has been demonstrated to be true for cameras with the Hubble Deep Field images.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooo LadyShea. You are so missing everything I've worked so hard to explain.

Here's my argument. Can you refute my premises or conclusion?

-Light travels constantly. This is an immutable property of light that can be empirically observed and measured.

-Light that has encountered matter, but not been absorbed by it, is light.

*Therefore light that has encountered matter, but not been absorbed by it, travels constantly.

All of your "hard work" and the result is a tautology with no explanatory value, so maybe refuting a simply argument will be helpful to you

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by sadie

I'm looking forward to chitchatting with you at the big party. I love my Project Reasons pals, but the constant tirades against religion can get tedious at times. I'm assuming there will be a greater diversity of opinion here, which might be refreshing.

lol.

welcome.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not doing anything. It is a tautology as you are stating it. If you add some actual mechanisms to your explanation it would cease being a tautology, but in all this time you've never done so.

You refuse to explain the "mirror image"...what exactly is it? How is it formed?

What do you mean how is it formed? It is formed through light. The only difference is that we see objects instantly. If an object is far away, only a small amount of non-absorbed photons will be resolved. If it is closer, we will have more photons at the retina. Optics works in exactly the same way. The only difference is that what we see, in the efferent account, is not related to time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does it work, exactly? You refuse to account for how light behaves in your model. You've refused to explain what the photoreceptors (rods and cones) actually do to facilitate efferent vision.You refuse to even call them photoreceptors!

I really don't see the value in getting into this again. Rods and cones play an important part in sight, but they don't explain the direction in which the eyes see. This comes from the brain, and there are a lot of mysteries in the brain yet to be revealed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You say light is a condition, but refuse to explain it's role. Does it need to be at the object? At the eye? Both? YOu refuse to explain how light comes to be located on the surface of camera film in Lessans scenario of the newly ignited Sun

I have explained the role of light when it comes to the visual spectrum, but you're not listening. If light is a condition of sight, it means what it says. It does not cause sight. If the object was not present, and we only had light that bounced off of the object, we would not get an image.

Originally Posted by LadyShea"

You eventually admitted the satisfaction principle was tautological...did you forget?

You are misquoting me. I said that any choice we make is in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is true. But there is a deeper understanding that you're not grasping, or you're purposely avoiding.

[Crumb]

Well, that party was over hyped...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Well, that party was over hyped...

I thought it was going well until Peacegirl came back and ruined it.

[LadyShea]

How can you use so many words and still say absolutely nothing?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean how is it formed? It is formed through light.

How? Where does the light come from and where is the mirror image located and by what mechanism is it formed? Does the light somehow arrange itself into a mirror image like nanobots or what exactly?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't see the value in getting into this again. Rods and cones play an important part in sight, but they don't explain the direction in which the eyes see.

What is their role, exactly? Explain what the rods and cones do in efferent vision?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained the role of light when it comes to the visual spectrum, but you're not listening.

No you haven't explained its role, you've only said it is a condition, not why it is a condition, not what it does in the efferent model.

If light is a condition of sight, it means what it says. It does not cause sight.

LOL, see! You just did it again. This is not an explanation of anything at all!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not doing anything. It is a tautology as you are stating it. If you add some actual mechanisms to your explanation it would cease being a tautology, but in all this time you've never done so.

You refuse to explain the "mirror image"...what exactly is it? How is it formed? How does it work, exactly? ...

Haven't you figured out by now that most of Lessans and therefore peacegirls gibberish is simply a literal interpretation of outdated ideas that one might find in a philosophy book of the early 1900's? When peacegirl says "mirror image" it is a play on the idea that the mind reflects on reality, therefore the image must be a "mirror image". The lens of the eye does not form a mirror image. Simple convex lenses form inverted, reversed images. So the "mind's eye" has to do more than simply reverse the image from left to right.

If you want to understand peacegirl, you must remember that you are reading the babblings of a very ignorant schizophrenic, just like her dad.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Well, that party was over hyped...

I did the best I could with some help from Spacemonkey, Thankyou.

Noise, rockets, food, music, moonshine, what more could you want? Oh I remember DoctorX didn't bring any girls.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Tautology, because "optical range" means "able to be seen"! So you just said "We can see what we see when the object is able to be seen."

Once again, using different words to say the same thing is a tautology

But it's not the same thing because the proposition is different. When I say we're in optical range, I mean that the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen. When you say we're in optical range, all you mean is that photons are at the retina, and therefore we see, but the object is not part of the equation.

"We are just light detectors" you say

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've never said "we are...". I said the eyes are light detectors, yes. I've said cameras are light detectors, yes. Those are true statements. That makes the eyes a sense organ as they use specialized receptor cells to detect stimulus from the outside world just as the other receptor cells do in the other senses.

No LadyShea, what determines a sense is that it relays information to the brain which can cause the brain to identify something from the external world that is impinging on the internal world. If efferent vision is true, there is nothing from light alone that is causing an effect, as is the case with the other sense organs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I thought it was going well until Peacegirl came back and ruined it.

Sorry bout that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Haven't you figured out by now that most of Lessans and therefore peacegirls gibberish is simply a literal interpretation of outdated ideas that one might find in a philosophy book of the early 1900's? When peacegirl says "mirror image" it is a play on the idea that the mind reflects on reality, therefore the image must be a "mirror image". The lens of the eye does not form a mirror image. Simple convex lenses form inverted, reversed images. So the "mind's eye" has to do more than simply reverse the image from left to right.

If you want to understand peacegirl, you must remember that you are reading the babblings of a very ignorant schizophrenic, just like her dad.

You're off your rocker NA. I have never seen someone say the same thing over and over again to the extent that you have. You're the one babbling nonsense and you will be viewed as someone who seriously needs his head examined from either a psychiatrist or an MD, because I don't think people can tell whether this is a physical ailment, a mental one, or both. I am seriously worried about you.

FYI, I never said "mirror image" was a perfect analogy. But it is close enough for my purposes in explaining this concept.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can you use so many words and still say absolutely nothing?

How? Where does the light come from and where is the mirror image located and by what mechanism is it formed? Does the light somehow arrange itself into a mirror image like nanobots or what exactly?

What is their role, exactly? Explain what the rods and cones do in efferent vision?

No you haven't explained its role, you've only said it is a condition, not why it is a condition, not what it does in the efferent model.

LOL, see! You just did it again. This is not an explanation of anything at all!

LadyShea, you are skirting the issue, not me. All of things that you are asking are secondary. He was describing from observation what the role of light is in sight. This goes back to his conclusions based on his astute observations that light, without the object in one's field of view, does not travel beyond that optical range. It does not have a life of its own whereby it brings information to the brain after the event (the material substance that comprise the object) is gone.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it's not the same thing because the proposition is different. When I say we're in optical range, I mean that the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen.

Which means "able to be seen". LOL you just did it again.

You are saying only "If it can be seen it is bright enough and large enough" or "If it is bright enough and large enough it can be seen", but what does that mean? How is brightness and size measured and what measurement is "enough"?

Unless you can determine what is "bright enough" or "large enough" without relying on whether or not it can be seen, you aren't offering any information at all..it is a tautology.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you say we're in optical range, all you mean is that photons are at the retina, and therefore we see, but the object is not part of the equation.

No, nobody has said anything like that. None of us has used the term optical range because it is only used when discussing specific measurements of instruments...like zoom lenses.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, what determines a sense is that it relays information to the brain which can cause the brain to identify something from the external world that is impinging on the internal world.

No, that is not the definition. Brains are not required as brainless animals have senses. You are putting unnecessary limitations on the word. Even Lessans definition said nothing about brains either

sense: A faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus

Originally Posted by Lessans

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as
any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives
impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses.
Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.

If efferent vision is true, there is nothing from light alone that is causing an effect, as is the case with the other sense organs.

Light is the stimulus and the other senses have different stimuli. So it is "the case" with the eyes just as it is with the other senses.

You have been unable to name any difference between the other senses and the eyes to account for Lessans insistence that the eyes are not a sense organ.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which means "able to be seen". LOL you just did it again.

You are saying only "If it can be seen it is bright enough and large enough" or "If it is bright enough and large enough it can be seen", but what does that mean? How is brightness and size measured and what measurement is "enough"?

Unless you can determine what is "bright enough" or "large enough" without relying on whether or not it can be seen, you aren't offering any information at all..it is a tautology.

No, nobody has said anything like that. None of us has used the term optical range because it is only used when discussing specific measurements of instruments...like zoom lenses.

No, that is not the definition. Brains are not required as brainless animals have senses. You are putting unnecessary limitations on the word. Even Lessans definition said nothing about brains either

sense: A faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus

Light is the stimulus and the other senses have different stimuli. So it is "the case" with the eyes just as it is with the other senses.

You have been unable to name any difference between the other senses and the eyes to account for Lessans insistence that the eyes are not a sense organ.

Yes I have LadyShea, and you are not the last word. Who are you LadyShea to announce these ridiculous accusations? Science has not established conclusively that light brings an image without the object. It's all conjecture based on false premises that place the eyes in the same category as the other senses, and there's no telling science that they could be wrong or I will be tarred and feathered, which is exactly what is happening.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you are skirting the issue, not me. All of things that you are asking are secondary. He was describing from observation what the role of light is in sight. This goes back to his conclusions based on his astute observations that light, without the object in one's field of view, does not travel beyond that optical range.

Lessans never said anything about field of view or optical range or light ceasing to travel (which is impossible). Those are terms you came up with in trying to formulate a model since he failed to provide one.

It does not have a life of its own whereby it brings information to the brain after the event (the material substance that comprise the object) is gone.

Light exists separately from the source of emission and has immutable properties that can be empirically observed and measured. Any model you come up with must include these properties, otherwise it is an impossible model you are positing

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have been unable to name any difference between the other senses and the eyes to account for Lessans insistence that the eyes are not a sense organ.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I have LadyShea

No you haven't, in fact the last discussion we had about this you said the following:

Originally Posted by peacegirl on 11/10/12

There probably is no unusual difference in the anatomy of the eye with that of the other sense organs (even though he said there are no afferent nerve endings in this organ)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Science has not established conclusively that light brings an image without the object.

Of course not, because science doesn't claim that light brings and image without an object. This is a strawman of what the scientific claims are.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here's my argument. Can you refute my premises or conclusion?

-Light travels constantly. This is an immutable property of light that can be empirically observed and measured.

-Light that has encountered matter, but not been absorbed by it, is light.

*Therefore light that has encountered matter, but not been absorbed by it, travels constantly.

All of your "hard work" and the result is a tautology with no explanatory value, so maybe refuting a simply argument will be helpful to you

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No you haven't, in fact the last discussion we had about this you said the following:

Of course not, because science doesn't claim that light brings and image without an object. This is a strawman of what the scientific claims are.

No, this is not a strawman. In fact, this is pivotol to the afferent model. Let me refresh your memory. It is believed that if we were on the star Rigel and the light that bounced off the object or event finally reached our telescopes, we would be seeing a past event. That means that the object or event could no longer be present LadyShea, which means that light is causing the brain to interpret an old image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans never said anything about field of view or optical range or light ceasing to travel (which is impossible). Those are terms you came up with in trying to formulate a model since he failed to provide one.

Light exists separately from the source of emission and has immutable properties that can be empirically observed and measured. Any model you come up with must include these properties, otherwise it is an impossible model you are positing

We are talking specifically about the visible spectrum which has nothing to do with the measurement of light and its properties. There is absolutely no conflict here, so don't try to make it appear that there is. As I've said a thousand times, this has to do with how the eyes function, not light. You don't seem to understand the difference.