#27501  
Old 06-19-2013, 03:13 AM
ChristinaM's Avatar
ChristinaM ChristinaM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Gender: Female
Posts: DLXXI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Awww thanks. Now I don't feel like I missed all the fun : )
Reply With Quote
  #27502  
Old 06-19-2013, 04:44 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I see that peacegirl is not bothering to reply to any of my posts, again. I suppose that is what I get for not calling her names.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #27503  
Old 06-19-2013, 07:44 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
I see that peacegirl is not bothering to reply to any of my posts, again. I suppose that is what I get for not calling her names.

Well, that should make you feel special, just like everyone else.
Reply With Quote
  #27504  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:12 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When it comes to objects, we do not have to wait for light to arrive because the image is not in the light. Danggggg, why can't you get this? The object is already in the field of view, which means the photons are already at the film.

No, you're still not getting it. You have to work backwards to understand this. IF THE OBJECT IS SEEN, that means that the light is already at the eye or we wouldn't be able to see the object.

You refuse to understand what I'm saying, or you are incapable of understanding what I'm saying. I'm not sure which one. If we are taking a picture of the object in real time, there is no waiting for light to arrive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Not at all: I understand your point of view perfectly. I am just pointing out that you contradict yourself by saying there are photons at the retina when no light has reached the earth yet.
No I am not, because efferent vision allows for this. The afferent account does not, and that's the position you're coming from whether you realize it or not.

Of course we don't have to wait. Film and retinas work the same way because they use the same light. If an object is seen from a camera, the non-absorbed photons are already at the lens because the object is in the camera's field of view.

Just remember that this is not about distance and light. It's about the object. If the object (not the light) is within one's optical range, and enough light is surrounding the object, the conditions will be met such that we will see the object. That means the light is already at the film/retina or we wouldn't be able to see the object. It would be out of visual range and there would be no resolution.

Peacegirl I think that most people here get what you are trying to say but they don't get what you are not saying, and that is when we look at something, according to you, the photons or image of that object is at our retina, but what you are not saying is how do the photons come in contact with the retina. How does the image of the object, the photons that surround it, instantly arrive at the retina or camera, just saying that it is due to the way efferent vision works, is not a sufficient explination. You need to detail the exact mechanism of how the photons that surround the object can come in contact with the retina or camera photo receptors. Just saying that it happens, is an assertion, you need to say how it happens.
If you can see the object, the light is already at the retina. That's what you're missing. There is no waiting for the light to reach your eyes, for this would be a delay. In the afferent account, you're waiting for light to travel through space/time and strike the eye, which will allow you to see whatever the light is bringing. In the case of efferent vision, it's the exact opposite. You're not waiting for anything because the image is not in the light. You're seeing the real thing due to light's presence. Just remember that if you can see the object, your eyes are already in optical range which is why there's no waiting time.
Reply With Quote
  #27505  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:18 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you can see the object, the light is already at the retina.
You keep saying this, and this is the impossible part. Without an explanation- that doesn't violate physics- for how light gets to be located at the retina, it will remain impossible. Not just implausible....flat out can't happen.

Light can't just be somewhere because you need it to be there.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Lone Ranger (06-19-2013)
  #27506  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:19 PM
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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If you can see the object, the light is already at the retina.
Sure. But how did it get there?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #27507  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:20 PM
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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
The problem I described has nothing to do with waiting for the Sun to be bright enough to be seen, for Lessans said the Sun is bright enough to be seen straight away at 12:00, and you face exactly the same problem anyway if the Sun is seen at 12:02. And the problem has nothing at all to do with traveling images. The problem is that you are putting light at the retina and saying it came from somewhere where you are unable to have it located at any previous time. Suppose the light is at the retina at 12:02. And suppose that there are no traveling images. Fine. Now tell me when was this light located at the Sun which you say it came from?
12:00. I don't understand what you're getting at Spacemonkey. Light travels, but the object that is seen is not time related.
Yay! A direct answer! Thank you.

But do you see the problem now? Firstly, you no longer have us seeing things in real time, but instead at a 2 minute delay. The Sun is ignited at 12:00, but you now say we will see it only two minutes later at 12:02. That is not real time vision.

Secondly, you have the same light at the Sun at 12:00 and then at the retina 93 million miles away two minutes later at 12:02. How did these particular photons get from the one place to the other? If they managed this without traveling through the intervening distance, then by definition they have just teleported there. And if they have gotten from the Sun to the retina by traveling, then you have this light traveling at 4 times the speed of light.

Do you agree that this is a problem? Or are you happy to have vision delayed by 2 minutes and light traveling 4 times faster than light?

How do you intend to fix this? Remember that any solution you offer must explain when light is first at the retina, where that specific light came from, when it was located at wherever it came from, and how it got from the one place to the other.
You're talking about time the minute you talk about traveling photons. As long as you come from this perspective you'll never grasp this concept because time implies distance which implies space/time travel. We're right back to the afferent position. :(
No, Peacegirl. YOU are talking about time when you say that photons from the Sun are at the retina at 12:02 and were at the Sun at 12:00. And YOU are talking about traveling photons as soon as you claim that these photons got from the Sun to the retina without teleporting.

If you want to concede that these things YOU have said were all wrong, then you are welcome to do so. But then you are back at square one and still need a new solution for explaining when the photons will be at the retina in Lessans' scenario, where they came from, and how they got there.

Every time that you try to explain this you succeed only in proving efferent vision to be completely impossible. Efferent vision cannot be considered plausible until you can address this problem. You can't ignore the reality of time and distance just because they cause you problems. Did the photons at the retina come from the Sun? If so, when were they at the Sun, and how did they get from the Sun to the retina?
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #27508  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:22 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 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Not at all: I understand your point of view perfectly. I am just pointing out that you contradict yourself by saying there are photons at the retina when no light has reached the earth yet.
No I am not, because efferent vision allows for this
How does efferent vision change the physical properties of light, which means it changes the laws of physics? What can our eyes possibly do to make light behave in impossible ways, such as being located where it cannot be located because it hasn't traveled to that location?

If you make claims about light, you are making claims about physics. That's why I have asked you if you really, truly, want to stick with your argument that light is physically located at the retina of the eye when we see something. Lessans made no such argument...he clearly didn't think light needed to be located at the retina to see things. That is 100% your claim.
BUmp
Reply With Quote
  #27509  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:23 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
I would still like to know why Peacegirls desire to cuddle is infringing, and het ex-husbands desire not to is not. All I see is two desires that cannot both be satisfied at the same time: what exactly justifies giving one right-of-way without looking at the context?
Who said anything about not taking into consideration the context, but if both people think their desire is the most important, we're at a standstill. Who gets the right-of-way? Answer: The person whose desire does not require the other spouse from having to sacrifice his desire, in order for this person's desire to be satisfied. For example, I go upstairs and realize that I forgot the paper. I scream downstairs for my husband to bring me the paper. He is in the middle of doing something, but I expect him to do me this favor. He says he's busy doing something. I feel like he doesn't care about me or my needs. Who is in the wrong here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectsus
I see no reason not to think that you had just as much right to a cuddle as your husband had the right not to feel forced to supply one...

So what makes one an infringement, and what makes the other perfectly ok?
You're missing the context in which a husband and wife interact. That's your first mistake. You have to understand that each person will want to show their love for the other, which is what keeps the other from wanting anyone else. Part of showing love for someone is not forcing them to do what they really don't want to do. But this can easily be worked out in a loving relationship. If the woman has a desire that she cannot do for herself, he would want to make her happy by satisfying her need. She knows he will do what she asks because he has expressed that if she needs him, he will be there for her. But that puts a responsibility on her to never take advantage of his generosity. Therefore, in the case of cuddling, he would desire to do this for her because he knows she can't do this for herself. But at the same time, she, knowing that he loves to stretch out after sex, wouldn't want to take advantage by insisting that he stay cuddling with her longer than is necessary, because this would be a sign of selfishness on her part, which she does not want to display if she wants to keep her man. Any action that shows any sign of selfishness is detrimental to the marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #27510  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:28 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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I would still like to know why Peacegirls desire to cuddle is infringing, and het ex-husbands desire not to is not. All I see is two desires that cannot both be satisfied at the same time: what exactly justifies giving one right-of-way without looking at the context?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Who gets the right-of-way? The person whose desire does not require the other having to give up his desire, in order for a desire to be satisfied.
But both desires require the other to give up his/her desire. If he sleeps alone, she must give up her desire to sleep together, and if they sleep together he must give up his desire to sleep alone.
Reply With Quote
  #27511  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:47 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
So ... how 'bout those bionic eyes which are now good enough to allow their users to recognize and distinguish between different faces, and read?

You know -- the very things you said would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision?


Wait, let me guess: "Something else must be going on," and they're not really seeing; they just think they are, right?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are interpreting the patterns on a screen, just like when someone makes a pattern on your back with his finger. That is not real vision, I'm sorry. Until it's proven that they can actually see the object, not interpret the pattern which is a representation of the real thing, we're back at square one.

What do you mean by "on a screen"? How does making a pattern on your back relate at all to what bionic eyes do?

Some bionic eyes use similar technology to cochlear implants to send impulses to the brain, and in fact the design was based on cochlear implants. Do you think hearing via cochlear implants is not 'real hearing" as well?
The person has to interpret the light and dark patterns. This is not seeing directly. It's still a huge advancement in helping people see something that resembles the real thing.

HowStuffWorks "How does a "bionic eye" allow blind people to see?"
I notice that you're deliberately avoiding discussion of the newest models -- again. You know, the models that are so good that they allow their users to recognize and distinguish between different faces, and even read.
I didn't see where they said that. What can they read? Again, interpreting patterns is not true reading. If someone draws a T on my back, I would interpret it as a T, but I am not really reading it myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
That's a far cry from just "interpretation of light and dark patterns," and is indeed "seeing directly."


And you keep trying to avoid the issue. Now why is that, I wonder?


So, for future reference, why don't you just enlighten us all and specify what resolution is sufficient for establishing "true sight"? Is it perhaps 720 × 576 (comparable to a standard-definition television), or perhaps 1920 x 1080 (comparable to a high-definition television).


Do let us know what that magic number is that distinguishes mere "interpretation of light and dark patterns" from "true sight." That'll make things a lot easier for everyone.


I would so love to nail down that particular goalpost ...
I don't see where people can read or see individual faces in the latest Argus II. I don't know how many electrodes would be necessary for someone to be able to see normally, or if it's even possible. They're not quite there yet in their development.

[I]The first version of the system had 16 electrodes on the implant and is still in clinical trials at the University of California in Los Angeles. Doctors implanted the retinal chip in six subjects, all of whom regained some degree of sight. They are now able to perceive shapes (such as the shaded outline of a tree) and detect movement to varying degrees. The newest version of the system should offer greater image resolution because it has far more electrodes.
That How Stuff Works article is 6 years old. Try looking up the very latest information next time

Quote:
The first real, high-resolution, user-configurable bionic eye | ExtremeTech

Researchers in Germany have unveiled the Alpha IMS retinal prosthesis; a device that completely redefines the state of the art of implanted, bionic devices. The first round of clinical trials were a huge success, with eight out of nine patients reporting that they can now detect mouth shapes (smiles, frowns), small objects such as telephones and cutlery, signs on doors, and — most importantly — whether a glass of wine is red or white.

The Alpha IMS, developed by the University of Tübingen in Germany, is exciting for two reasons. First, it is connected to your brain via 1,500 electrodes, providing unparalleled visual acuity and resolution (the recently-approved-in-the-US Argus II retinal prosthesis has just 60 electrodes). Second, Alpha IMS is completely self-contained: Where the Argus II relies on an external camera to relay data to the implant embedded in your retina, the Alpha IMS prosthesis has a built-in sensor that directly gathers its imagery from the light that passes into your eye. This has the knock-on effect that the Argus II requires you to turn your head if you wish to look from side to side, while the Alpha IMS allows you to swivel your eyeballs normally. In essence, Alpha IMS is the first true, self-contained bionic eye.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/40JbGXTbSOQ?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I was trying to look for the date but didn't see it. The problem here is that this whole bionic eye advancement does not prove that the brain is interpreting the light. Building a bionic eye does not exclude the retina. It replaces it with sensors that can act in place of cells that are not working. This does not prove that signals are entering the brain through the optic nerve and being interpreted as an image. The images are on a screen which the brain can see directly, but to say that this representation of the outside world is normal vision, or will lead to normal vision, is far fetched. This wonderful technology is still a simulation of the real thing, which you're trying to say IS the real thing.

Last edited by peacegirl; 06-19-2013 at 05:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27512  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I didn't see where they said that. What can they read? Again, interpreting patterns is not true reading. If someone draws a T on my back, I would interpret it as a T, but I am not really reading it myself.
Why do you keep quoting from a 6 year-old article? The Argus II is relatively ancient; the Alpha IMS has far better resolution and capabilities.

And since I gave you links -- including a link to the technical paper describing exactly how it works -- you can't pretend you didn't know this.

It looks a whole lot like you're trying to move the goalposts, and trying to ignore inconvenient information.



And speaking of moving goalposts, when are you going to get around to telling us exactly what resolution counts as "True Vision," as opposed to mere "interpretation of light and dark patterns"? It'd be really helpful to know exactly where the goalposts are located!
I admit I got mixed up between the Argus and the newer one. Could you give me the links again?
Reply With Quote
  #27513  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:52 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
I see that peacegirl is not bothering to reply to any of my posts, again. I suppose that is what I get for not calling her names.
Your posts are filled with sarcasm. You haven't asked a serious question in ages.
Reply With Quote
  #27514  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:54 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I would still like to know why Peacegirls desire to cuddle is infringing, and het ex-husbands desire not to is not. All I see is two desires that cannot both be satisfied at the same time: what exactly justifies giving one right-of-way without looking at the context?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Who gets the right-of-way? The person whose desire does not require the other having to give up his desire, in order for a desire to be satisfied.
But both desires require the other to give up his/her desire. If he sleeps alone, she must give up her desire to sleep together, and if they sleep together he must give up his desire to sleep alone.
But his desire is not imposing on her. Does it require her to do anything? No. But for her to satisfy her desire, he has to give up his. Therefore, she is the one that must yield. Geeeeze, why is this so difficult? This is the problem in a nutshell; people are trying to find flaws that aren't there.
Reply With Quote
  #27515  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:56 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
I was trying to look for the date but I must have missed it. The problem here is that this whole bionic eye advancement does not prove that the brain is interpreting the light. Building a bionic eye does not exclude the retina. It replaces it with sensors that can act in place of cells that are not working.
Yes, the implant is a light sensor that sends signals to the brain.
Quote:
This does not prove that signals are entering the brain through the optic nerve and being interpreted as an image.
Since that is exactly what the implant does, because it was designed to do so, then what are you talking about? It sends electric signals to the brain via the optic nerve. That's how it works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The images are on a screen which the brain can see directly,
Again, what do you mean by "on a screen"? You keep saying this, but there is no screen. WTF are you talking about?




Quote:
In the study, a majority of the participants had functional vision restored and two of the subjects developed visual ability considerably more substantial than seen in the initial clinical study of the Alpha IMS. Three of the people were able to read large printed letters spontaneously post implantation. Retinal Implant Alpha IMS Brings Sight to Blind in New Study (w/video)

Last edited by LadyShea; 06-19-2013 at 01:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Lone Ranger (06-19-2013)
  #27516  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:56 PM
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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
I see that peacegirl is not bothering to reply to any of my posts, again. I suppose that is what I get for not calling her names.
Your posts are filled with sarcasm. You haven't asked a serious question in ages.
I have, and you still refuse to answer them.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #27517  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:59 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Not at all: I understand your point of view perfectly. I am just pointing out that you contradict yourself by saying there are photons at the retina when no light has reached the earth yet.
No I am not, because efferent vision allows for this
How does efferent vision change the physical properties of light, which means it changes the laws of physics? What can our eyes possibly do to make light behave in impossible ways, such as being located where it cannot be located because it hasn't traveled to that location?

If you make claims about light, you are making claims about physics. That's why I have asked you if you really, truly, want to stick with your argument that light is physically located at the retina of the eye when we see something. Lessans made no such argument...he clearly didn't think light needed to be located at the retina to see things. That is 100% your claim.
If you extend this knowledge it is obvious that light is at the retina LadyShea. He didn't have to spell it out. He did say this:

Now tell me, did it ever
occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally
accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately
symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult
since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact,
it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that the eyes are not a
sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light,
is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.
Reply With Quote
  #27518  
Old 06-19-2013, 01:01 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
I see that peacegirl is not bothering to reply to any of my posts, again. I suppose that is what I get for not calling her names.
Your posts are filled with sarcasm. You haven't asked a serious question in ages.
I have, and you still refuse to answer them.
Because you will not think in terms of the efferent model, therefore anything I say will not make sense to you. You will continue on the same path to nowhere, telling me that the photons have to travel to get from a to b. I am saying that if we see the object, the light is the condition only. It is the opposite side of the imaginary coin. It provides the conduit that allows us to see the object, but it doesn't bring anything through space/time.
Reply With Quote
  #27519  
Old 06-19-2013, 01:02 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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I would still like to know why Peacegirls desire to cuddle is infringing, and het ex-husbands desire not to is not. All I see is two desires that cannot both be satisfied at the same time: what exactly justifies giving one right-of-way without looking at the context?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Who gets the right-of-way? The person whose desire does not require the other having to give up his desire, in order for a desire to be satisfied.
But both desires require the other to give up his/her desire. If he sleeps alone, she must give up her desire to sleep together, and if they sleep together he must give up his desire to sleep alone.
But his desire is not imposing on her. Does it require her to do anything? No. But for her to satisfy her desire, he has to give up his. Therefore, she is the one that must yield. Geeeeze, why is this so difficult? This is the problem in a nutshell; people are trying to find flaws that aren't there.
It requires that she sleep alone, which she doesn't want to do. Also, it speaks to compatibility, which Lessans completely ignored in his sex obsession. He never considered anything but sexual satisfaction as important to a marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #27520  
Old 06-19-2013, 01:03 PM
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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If you extend this knowledge it is obvious that light is at the retina LadyShea.
Sure. And how did it get there?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (06-19-2013)
  #27521  
Old 06-19-2013, 01:04 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:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Not at all: I understand your point of view perfectly. I am just pointing out that you contradict yourself by saying there are photons at the retina when no light has reached the earth yet.
No I am not, because efferent vision allows for this
How does efferent vision change the physical properties of light, which means it changes the laws of physics? What can our eyes possibly do to make light behave in impossible ways, such as being located where it cannot be located because it hasn't traveled to that location?

If you make claims about light, you are making claims about physics. That's why I have asked you if you really, truly, want to stick with your argument that light is physically located at the retina of the eye when we see something. Lessans made no such argument...he clearly didn't think light needed to be located at the retina to see things. That is 100% your claim.
If you extend this knowledge it is obvious that light is at the retina LadyShea. He didn't have to spell it out. He did say this:

Now tell me, did it ever
occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally
accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately
symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult
since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact,
it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that the eyes are not a
sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light,
is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.
Still doesn't explain how the light gets to the retina...which is impossible in Lessans Sun at noon scenario.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (06-19-2013)
  #27522  
Old 06-19-2013, 01:07 PM
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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because you will not think in terms of the efferent model...
Not true. I have been thinking in terms of the efferent model. Only you seem to think that doing this should involve not thinking or asking about the parts of that model that don't make any sense. You can't have photons somewhere without explaining where they came from or how they got there. And whenever you try to address this, you end up making ridiculous claims that you then have to retract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You will continue on the same path to nowhere, telling me that the photons have to travel to get from a to b.
I didn't tell you that at all. YOU said that the photons would be at the retina at 12:02 and were at the Sun at 12:00, and I then ASKED you whether or not they traveled across the intervening distance. You refused to answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am saying that if we see the object, the light is the condition only. It is the opposite side of the imaginary coin. It provides the conduit that allows us to see the object, but it doesn't bring anything through space/time.
None of this explains what your model needs to explain, which is when the photons will be at the retina, where they came from, and how they got there.

:weasel:
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (06-19-2013)
  #27523  
Old 06-19-2013, 01:15 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I was trying to look for the date but I must have missed it. The problem here is that this whole bionic eye advancement does not prove that the brain is interpreting the light. Building a bionic eye does not exclude the retina. It replaces it with sensors that can act in place of cells that are not working.
Yes, the implant is a light sensor that sends signals to the brain.
Quote:
This does not prove that signals are entering the brain through the optic nerve and being interpreted as an image.
Since that is exactly what the implant does, because it was designed to do so, then what are you talking about? It sends electric signals to the brain via the optic nerve. That's how it works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The images are on a screen which the brain can see directly,
Again, what do you mean by "on a screen"? You keep saying this, but there is no screen of any kind in bionic eyes. WTF are you talking about?




Quote:
In the study, a majority of the participants had functional vision restored and two of the subjects developed visual ability considerably more substantial than seen in the initial clinical study of the Alpha IMS. Three of the people were able to read large printed letters spontaneously post implantation. Retinal Implant Alpha IMS Brings Sight to Blind in New Study (w/video)
Right here it says this:

The implants capture light and in turn stimulate the optic nerve, which delivers visual signal data to the brain.

My question is if the optic nerve is intact, how do they know these signals from the newly created retina are being transduced into signals that are being interpreted inside the brain. Why can't the brain be doing what the brain does when the retina is working? It's a replacement part basically, which could still create limited vision, but this does not prove what the brain is actually doing. Sorry, I don't think this proves what you think it proves.
Reply With Quote
  #27524  
Old 06-19-2013, 01:16 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
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:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Not at all: I understand your point of view perfectly. I am just pointing out that you contradict yourself by saying there are photons at the retina when no light has reached the earth yet.
No I am not, because efferent vision allows for this
How does efferent vision change the physical properties of light, which means it changes the laws of physics? What can our eyes possibly do to make light behave in impossible ways, such as being located where it cannot be located because it hasn't traveled to that location?

If you make claims about light, you are making claims about physics. That's why I have asked you if you really, truly, want to stick with your argument that light is physically located at the retina of the eye when we see something. Lessans made no such argument...he clearly didn't think light needed to be located at the retina to see things. That is 100% your claim.
If you extend this knowledge it is obvious that light is at the retina LadyShea. He didn't have to spell it out. He did say this:

Now tell me, did it ever
occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally
accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately
symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult
since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact,
it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that the eyes are not a
sense organ when it can be seen that no object, other than light,
is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.
Still doesn't explain how the light gets to the retina...which is impossible in Lessans Sun at noon scenario.
Oh my god, the light doesn't get anywhere LadyShea. The light and the object are one, two sides of the same coin. Do you not understand English?
Reply With Quote
  #27525  
Old 06-19-2013, 01:21 PM
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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Oh my god, the light doesn't get anywhere LadyShea.
Then that means the light at the retina must either have come into existence at the retina, or have always been at the retina. Or do you not understand English?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The light and the object are one...
No, they are not. The Sun (i.e. the object in Lessans' example) is made of matter while the light is not. We have explained this before. Do you not understand English?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (06-19-2013)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (0 members and 10 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 09:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.26185 seconds with 14 queries