#25001  
Old 03-13-2013, 01:18 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

And you got post 25000 sadie!
Reply With Quote
  #25002  
Old 03-13-2013, 02:01 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCCXLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Darn, I missed the party. Did anyone save me a piece of cake? :giggle:
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #25003  
Old 03-13-2013, 02:04 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCCXLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When you cannot see an object because it is too far away or not bright enough, you will not see said object because the non-absorbed light has dispersed to the point where there is no more resolution at the retina. Why is this? Because the object is no longer within our visual field.
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.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 03-13-2013 at 02:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25004  
Old 03-13-2013, 03:12 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (03-13-2013)
  #25005  
Old 03-13-2013, 03:16 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
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

Quote:
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #25006  
Old 03-13-2013, 03:26 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25007  
Old 03-13-2013, 05:23 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Everything remains the same as far as the physical properties of light.
Then that means you agree that reflected light travels until/unless it encounters matter that absorbs it.
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

Last edited by LadyShea; 03-13-2013 at 11:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25008  
Old 03-13-2013, 07:44 PM
ZEZOZE's Avatar
ZEZOZE ZEZOZE is offline
you're next
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMCCXIII
Images: 147
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by sadie View Post
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.
__________________
paranoid fringe dweller
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
traumaturgist (03-17-2013)
  #25009  
Old 03-13-2013, 11:52 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCCXLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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?
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #25010  
Old 03-13-2013, 11:55 PM
Crumb's Avatar
Crumb Crumb is offline
Cmurb!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: LVMMCDVII
Blog Entries: 22
Images: 355
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Well, that party was over hyped... :fail:
__________________
:joecool2: :cascadia: :ROR: :portland: :joecool2:
:glare:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (03-14-2013)
  #25011  
Old 03-14-2013, 12:25 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCXXVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumb View Post
Well, that party was over hyped... :fail:
I thought it was going well until Peacegirl came back and ruined it.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #25012  
Old 03-14-2013, 12:35 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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?
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
What is their role, exactly? Explain what the rods and cones do in efferent vision?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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!
Reply With Quote
  #25013  
Old 03-14-2013, 12:58 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXIX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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? ...
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25014  
Old 03-14-2013, 03:50 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumb View Post
Well, that party was over hyped... :fail:

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.
Reply With Quote
  #25015  
Old 03-14-2013, 01:14 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCCXLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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
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.

Quote:
"We are just light detectors" you say
Quote:
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.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #25016  
Old 03-14-2013, 01:16 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCCXLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumb View Post
Well, that party was over hyped... :fail:
I thought it was going well until Peacegirl came back and ruined it.
Sorry bout that. :P
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #25017  
Old 03-14-2013, 01:20 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCCXLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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? ...
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.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #25018  
Old 03-14-2013, 01:26 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCCXLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How can you use so many words and still say absolutely nothing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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?
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
What is their role, exactly? Explain what the rods and cones do in efferent vision?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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!
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.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #25019  
Old 03-14-2013, 02:39 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
"We are just light detectors" you say
Quote:
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.
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
Quote:
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
.
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25020  
Old 03-14-2013, 03:21 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCCXLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
"We are just light detectors" you say
Quote:
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.
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
Quote:
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
.
Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #25021  
Old 03-14-2013, 03:23 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How can you use so many words and still say absolutely nothing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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?
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
What is their role, exactly? Explain what the rods and cones do in efferent vision?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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!
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.

Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #25022  
Old 03-14-2013, 03:34 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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)
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25023  
Old 03-14-2013, 03:37 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Bump
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Everything remains the same as far as the physical properties of light.
Then that means you agree that reflected light travels until/unless it encounters matter that absorbs it.
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
Reply With Quote
  #25024  
Old 03-14-2013, 04:45 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCCXLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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)
Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #25025  
Old 03-14-2013, 04:47 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCCXLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How can you use so many words and still say absolutely nothing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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?
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
What is their role, exactly? Explain what the rods and cones do in efferent vision?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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!
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.

Quote:
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
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.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.95530 seconds with 14 queries