A revolution in thought

[davidm]

This is like somebody saying, "Maybe someday, we'll figure out how to fly people into space."

*There follows a gigantic amount of discourse on how the space age began in 1957*

And afterward, the person says, "Maybe someday, we'll figure out how to fly people into space."

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, I know there will need to be empirical proof for anyone to take him seriously. If these tests can't be performed, he is sunk. It could be a test to determine how a baby begins to focus, or other empirical tests. If there is evidence that Lessans was onto something, then scientists could try to figure out how sight occurs. In other words, if the optic nerve is completely afferent, there would have to be some other mechanism at work and this is what would be investigated. But I know right now you are taking all of this as a big joke. I don't even know why I am responding.

Oh if only people have studied how vision develops in infants.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Oh if only people have studied how vision develops in infants.

<peacegirl> Oh noes, that is too sketchy. </peacegirl>

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, paaleeaaseee!! This is so ass*#$*nine, that I refuse to answer.

Thankyou, I was hoping to get more people to read my witticism, I was concerned that you had me on Ignore.

[Doctor X]

Yeah, peacegirl found that observation proved too valid for her comfort.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Yeah, peacegirl found that observation proved too valid for her comfort.

--J.D.

Oh dear me, I did not want to make peacegirl uncomfortable which would be like hurting her, and move her to less satisfaction. I must really be more careful understanding that she cannot blame me or say anything hurtful to me?

[Awareness]

Even I can explain how we see, because I had to learn it for my exams and could use it for my work.

But it was one of the most interesting topics of science for myself, in my modest level of course.

So I make Tube Luminescent lamps, and if you want the best to come out 0f your livingroom you should buy a colour 965 HCRI or a 940 .

the 9 gives away about how much procent of colour the object presents to you
by using the 965 or the 940.
THat is how much procent compared to the sun. (90%, and the sun is of course 100%)

" Kleurweergave " as we say it in dutch.

But Google translates it in to color, which is of course wrong.

It's what colour the object itself presents to you depending on what kind of light it is "bathed" in.

The fun part is that light ( and I hardly read ,or am I reading from something)
is made up of a spectrum of ultraviolette radiation which can not be seen , but complete they make white light.

The reflection story has already been told, so the color what you see of anything is never permanent.

So buy your stuff in the daylight, and let the butcher turn off the lamps for a couple of seconds, when you buy meat.

[Doctor X]

I have just informed the IRS that tax law is just "too sketchy" so they can have none of my money.






That will work, right?

--J.D.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right about reading the posts in the order in which they were written, but sometimes I like having a conversation in real time which means I post something and then the person who is online responds. Unfortunately, the previous posts take a back seat. But I try to catch up at one point or another. I will try to be more conscious of their order because it does mess up the flow of conversation.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans was also a philosopher. His knowledge came from philosophical discussion, even though it is factual. I write this on the copyright page.

Although this discovery was borne out of philosophical thought, it
is factual, not theoretical, in nature.

Even if he was a philosopher, that does not prevent comparing him, his abilities, and his ideas to Socrates from being laughable. Nothing that you posted in response to me supports the idea that Lessans was as notable a contributor to philosophy as Socrates. Therefore, the idea [Lessans is accurately comparable to Socrates] is still without merit and silly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quoted for posterity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are coming to an incorrect conclusion about this man. He was just showing that predicting an eclipse is not the same as giving something to mankind and not having the exact coordinates as to when the transition will occur. You keep telling me he had a problem with self-aggrandizement, and I am telling you he was humble.(emphasis added)

Yes, the portion I emphasized above is what is happening. However, I have a reason--because he called himself a benefactor of mankind--behind what I say. You have only your word, which is pretty worthless to me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now troll and machine have been added to the list of stupid, incapable of higher order thinking, a liar and dishonest. Quite a description, I must say.

LOL.

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

The optic nerve is afferent. In the "sketchy" essay on how sight works written by the Lone Ranger, which is nearly 40 pages long and includes detailed diagrams, it was explained how we see. So there is no need for scientists to "try to figure out how sight occurs." We already know how sight occurs, and the Lone Ranger explained it.

While TLR's essay is good and conclusive, the sad fact proves it is above peacegirl's comprehension. She did not read it, which is why she cannot address it. If she proved honest she would have questions on all of the areas she does not understand. But she is not.

Just another charlatan selling the snake-oil of stupidity.

--J.D.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It comes from the object itself. That information is the actual object (it's the real deal, not an interpretation of the real deal) and the light is what allows us to see it.

How? If you can't answer this simple question then you have got nothing to contribute to the science of vision. Established theory does answer the how question. If you want anyone to take Lessens' observations seriously then you have to provide an answer to that how question that serves at least as well as the established theory.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will start with your last sentence first. It is only a ponderous read because it hasn't been validated.

It is a ponderous read because it is so poorly written.

Originally Posted by davidm

Lessans does not have a theory. He has an incomprehensible assertion. It's some gobbledygook about "a screen" of "undeniable substance."

What does that mean? Where is the screen?

Is the eye like a movie screen, and there are little projectors located in the optic nerve that are projecting moving images on the screen of the eye from the back of the head? Is that what he means?

If so, he's wrong!

If the above is not what he means, then what does he mean?

If I am reading him correctly, the screen is the object itself. When we assign particular qualities and values to an object (qualities and values that are not inherent in the object itself) it is as though we are projecting our bias and prejudices upon the object itself. If that is what Lessans is saying, it is not a particularly controversial or original idea. This idea is apparently the backdoor that led Lessans to the notion that the eye is not sense organ. However, there is nothing about this idea that requires that the eye not be a sense organ. His "backdoor" opens only into the garden of his own imagination.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to use the quote function, maybe it's not the most efficient way, but at least I'm letting people know who is doing the talking.

If you use the quote function in conjunction with the preview post function, then you can see, in the preview window, whether or not you have used the quote function correctly. If, in some instances, you have not used it correctly you can then make corrections to the post before you post it.

Alternatively, if you read your own posts after you have posted them, and discover that you have made some mistake in the use of the quote function, you can then use the edit function to correct those mistakes.

Please make a point of doing so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you keep saying, but if his knowledge prevents people from feeling as if they are inferior productions of the human race, I think that's a pretty big reason.

Your argument is conditional upon his knowledge performing as advertised. As we have no evidence that it will perform as advertised, there is no compelling reason to give it serious consideration. It is a bit like asking someone to invest in a company that makes cars that run on water, without providing a working prototype or, at the very least, engineering specifications that provide a reasonable expectation that the car will work as advertised.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That goes back to Lessans' observations. And I said many times that someone who is a sniper might not look like he has a justification, but if you examine his background you will find rage that manifests in this way. It is an indirect retaliatory response. Lessans writes:

In order to hurt another, man must be able to derive
some satisfaction from this, which means that he was previously hurt
and is justified to retaliate, or else he knows, absolutely and positively,
that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they
knew.

You are doing it again. What you have provided is neither an explanation or evidence in support of the claim. It is just Lessans' unsupported assertion about how he thinks conscience works. No reasons are given for why we ought to think that his claim has merit and thus deserves to be further investigated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They really aren't giving Lessans a chance because they won't dare entertain the thought that he could be right. That would make them suckers.

You appear to be assigning base motives to peoples' actions without sufficient justification for doing so. What is your evidence for this being the reason that these people (whoever they may be) are rejecting Lessans' claims?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But whether the light needs to impinge on the optic nerve in order to see an object, or whether the optic nerve could be activated because of the properties of light and of the eye itself --- is still an open question.

The two are the same. That "light needs to impinge on the optic nerve in order to see an object" is a function of the combined "properties of light and of the eye itself". There is no question here, open or otherwise.

[Angakuk]

I would like to make two astute observations of my own.

1. On several occasions peacegirl has suggested that, in order to get the full benefit of Lessans' work, we ought to provisionally accept his premises. This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. After all, most works of science/fantasy fiction require that the reader engage in a willing suspension of disbelief in order to get the most enjoyment out of the work. I see no reason why we should not treat Lessans' book in the same manner.

2. When she is asked for evidence in support of Lessans' claims, peacegirl often simply quotes Lessans making those claims. I believe that she does this because, for her, Lessans' claims, in and of themselves, constitute sufficient evidence for the truth of those claims. If Lessans said that something was a scientific/mathematical/undeniable truth, then it must be so. What more evidence could one possibly require? It is true that saying something is so does not make it so, for us. However, if Lessans said it was so, then it must be so.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to use the quote function, maybe it's not the most efficient way, but at least I'm letting people know who is doing the talking.

Reeeaaaallllyyyy?? I am surprised you can say that with a straight face. Please examine this, which was in your very last response to me, and tell me whether it supports your claim or not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you keep saying, but if his knowledge prevents people from feeling as if they are inferior productions of the human race, I think that's a pretty big reason.

There is no gap in the scientific knowledge for [preventing people from feeling as if they are inferior productions] in our understanding of sight/light. No scientist is out there wondering why our understanding of sight/light does not explain the idea in brackets. That is because they don't have anything to do with each other. You are moving on to the whole words part of his argument, before verifying that he has the sight/light part down. If he has the sight/light part wrong, then we don't even get to the way he thinks words work. He's just wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is this your goal? I'm laughing.

I enjoy things that are absurd, and this thread is full of absurdity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well thank you. At least I won't be walking around feeling stupid because wildernesse said so.

I can't believe you did this in the same thread where you said there was evidence of you trying to use the quote function so that at least you were letting people know who was talking. Really, your troll quotient is rising substantially.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It says that you feel justified in your responses: You either feel justified in your analysis of me, or you feel that you paid for your mistake by admitting that I'm not stupid and making an apology of sorts.

Actually, I did not admit that [peacegirl is not stupid]. All I said was it is possible that you are a troll and do not have a reading comprehension problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still say it wasn't about my being dishonest. It was about misunderstanding what you meant by your words.

Ok, so you have a reading comprehension problem. Thanks for letting us know.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That goes back to Lessans' observations. And I said many times that someone who is a sniper might not look like he has a justification, but if you examine his background you will find rage that manifests in this way. It is an indirect retaliatory response. Lessans writes:

In order to hurt another, man must be able to derive
some satisfaction from this, which means that he was previously hurt
and is justified to retaliate, or else he knows, absolutely and positively,
that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they
knew.

So, you can't give me a list of reasons. What you quoted from the book is just an assertion that a person was justified by retaliation or knows he would be blamed. I think that is stupid, because people can cause hurt without retaliating and because I do not think that the conscience works the way that Lessans thinks at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just said that one doesn't need higher order thinking skills in order to present something that could be valuable. Now you're saying it does matter to some people. Which is it?

It is both. Please read. Everyone can still take you seriously, but that does not mean that they will. This is independent of your characteristics. The major reason why people are not taking the ideas seriously is because they are scientifically unsound and make claims about humans and human experiences that do not match what others perceive as reality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm calm. The only time I get defensive is when your responses refer to me as a troll, a machine, a liar, and dishonest. If you didn't attach these labels onto me, I would probably listen a lot more carefully too.

Well, it is your choice to become defensive when I say those things. You move in the direction of greatest satisfaction to yourself, apparently, even when it does not move you toward your ultimate goal of discussing these ideas productively. Sad.

I am not responsible for your reactions to my words, even if I know you will react that way. Perhaps I get value out of it, and find it even more amusing than trying to understand what you are trying to say or helping you communicate (even if I value those factors, too, I could just be a complicated person with competing values).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do, but this is a group that believes they are correct based on their scientific criteria. I still think their evauation is sketchy at best. Something is missing and they are too sure of themselves. They really aren't giving Lessans a chance because they won't dare entertain the thought that he could be right. That would make them suckers. So we are stuck at a rock and a hard place. I believe other people might give him the benefit of the doubt, or at least read the book the way Lessans asked.

Why not go and find those other people, then?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

After 30 years of deep analysis, I doubt very much that he could be wrong. He was not the type of person to hide the fact that he could be wrong either. I don't think he would have ever put something in his book that he wasn't 100% positive about. Afterall, he was a mathematician in his own right and had tremendous analytical ability. I will say, once again, that he could have been wrong regarding the sun exploding instantly. Only time will tell.

What does [mathematician in his own right] mean? Can you show us an example of this?


* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages.

[Doctor X]

"30 years of analysis" and she still cannot account for all of the errors people have been pointing out to her for about ten years.

EPIC FAIL right there.

--J.D.

[Awareness]

Has it ever occurred to you that Peacegirl could have just the opposite meaning of what her name claims to be.

You should never be agitated, when you
read something that is adressed to you.

Let ALL YOUR emotions reign, let all go, when you are eye to eye,
bad breath to bad breath.

BUT HERE ON THE INTERNET, you should keep your cool.
Not everybody is scincere, not everybody is looking for a fight, or looking to learn or discuss, or get to know.
There are also people, who are not true, and just want to play with you
for the fun of it.

So much effort....................Or I am wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is conveying information, but it's in reference to the actual leaf. You aren't getting the information just from the light. It's in combination with how the leaf reflects and absorbs the light that allows you to identify the chemical make up of the leaf. There is no conflict here.

Huh? The only thing that reaches the eye (or the spectrographic analyzer) is light that is reflected from the leaf. You shine light on the leaf and then, based upon how much light is reflected at different wavelengths, you can identify the chemical components of the leaf. I can tell you which pigments a leaf contains (the two forms of chlorophyll aren't the only pigments that a leaf can have) -- and which it doesn't -- simply by examining the light it reflects. Obviously, my ability to do so is due to how the pigments of the leaf absorb and reflect light.

But if the information that allows me to determine which wavelengths of light are absorbed and which are reflected is not encoded in the reflected light itself, then where on Earth is it? It's not as if I need to know what a leaf is in order to see that it reflects green light. And the spectrographic analyzer certainly doesn't have any idea what a leaf is, but it gets the same results that my eyes do.

What allows me to determine which wavelengths of light are absorbed and which are reflected by the leaf's pigments is the fact that different wavelengths of light stimulate the three different kinds of cone cells in the retina differently.

Thus the mixture of different wavelengths in the light striking my retina determines which of the three cones are stimulated, and to what extent. The impulses that are generated when the cone cells are stimulated by the light striking them are then relayed to the brain. That is how my brain can determine which wavelengths of light are being received (and which are not), and so can determine the color of the leaf -- by analyzing which cones are being stimulated by the light striking them, and to what extent.

The light that was, you know, reflected from the leaf and (because different pigments absorb and reflect different wavelengths of light) is thus transmitting information about the pigments contained in the leaf.

And it's not as if humans are unique in any way regarding our ability to detect colors and to distinguish between objects based simply upon which wavelengths of light they happen to absorb and reflect. Indeed, most birds and many insects are considerably better at it than we are.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doc, paaleeaaseee!! This is so ass*#$*nine, that I refuse to answer.

Yeah doc, don't be so ass*#$*nine!

_

_

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

What does [mathematician in his own right] mean? Can you show us an example of this?

That is a very good question, Wildy.

Peacegirl, exactly what do you mean when you say that Lessans was a mathematician? Was he, at sometime, employed in that capacity? Did he publish any work in the field?

I notice that his obituary makes no mention of his having been a mathematician, or a philosopher. Why the omission? Did you have any say about what information was included in his obituary?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't work because that's not what he is saying. Please read this again:

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees
various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of
differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in
preference to another, or may prefer to play with one toy over
another, but in so far as she is concerned all she sees are a bunch
of objects.

As her eyes are focused on a dog I shall repeat the word
dog rapidly in her ear. When she turns away I stop. This will be
continued until she looks for him when hearing the word which
indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object
has been established and a photograph taken. Soon this relation is
formed which makes her conscious of a particular difference that
exists in the external world.

As she learns more and more words
such as cat, horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of
these differences which no one can deny because they are seen
through words or slides that circumscribe accurately these various
bits of substance. This is exactly how we learn words only I am
speeding up the process. Before long she learns house, tree, car,
chair, door, kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth,
eyes, hair, girl, boy, and so on. Until she learns the word cat she
could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a
negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox
cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the
difference has been developed.

She also learns the names of
individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan,
Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. My
granddaughter can identify her mother from hundreds and
hundreds of photographs because the difference is a negative that
not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not. In other
words, as she learns these names and words her brain takes a
picture of the objects symbolized and when she sees these
differences again she projects the word or name, but the brain will
not take any picture until a relation is formed.

Consequently, these
differences that exist in the external world which are not
identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable
only because they are related to words, names or slides that we
project for recognition. If we would lose certain names or words
we would have amnesia because when we see these ordinarily
familiar differences we are unable to project the words or names
necessary for recognition.

This is not what we were discussing at all - you are squirming away from the question at hand.

It is also yet another example of Lessans thinking: he takes one part of how the brain interprets the information from the eyes, and then takes that idea and tries to make it fit all of reality, as a sort of gandiose discovery. It does not apply that widely, nor is it that much of a discovery.

Sure, conditioning has a part in how we model the world internally, but it is not the only part, nor is it the main one. We would still see without conditioning, or word association. Words do not, in fact, rule the way we think and make decisions as much as Lessans thinks - in fact, we have seen studies indicating that many decisions are made instinctively by the parts of the brain that have to do with emotions, and that we have a hard time consciously controlling, and only rationalized by the rest of the brain afterwards. No words involved there - the part of the brain that involves language is part of the second category. This means that we see first, and apply labels (words) later. Certainly not that we can only see because of the labels.

Also - what is being photographed, and with what? I will give you a hint - it is sort of in the word PHOTOgraphed.

If this were true, we would not be able to see things we do not have a word for - as it turns out, we can.

Compare Lessans with reality, and time after time again there are huge discrepancies. The man was a rather grandiose enthusiast, but he did not think his system through, blinded by his own need to have come up with a world-spanning, global and universal solution to just about everything.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is a very good question, Wildy.

Peacegirl, exactly what do you mean when you say that Lessans was a mathematician? Was he, at sometime, employed in that capacity? Did he publish any work in the field?

No, if what wildernesse quoted is correct, I don't think peacegirl was saying Lessans was a mathematician. There's the obvious implication that he was quite good at it, yes and, that he possibly could have made a living at it, that is, if he chose to do so, but, that's not quite the same thing.

[Angakuk]

Iacchus, peacegirl has stated on a number of occasions that Lessans was a mathematician. She has never elaborated on what that means. So, how about we let her answer the question?

[peacegirl]

I found this excerpt and I think it gives at least some pause before concluding Lessans was completely off his rocker.

This first question asks about the focusing ability of infants, the optical part of vision. When you try to look at an object, special muscles inside your eye called the ciliary muscles automatically contract or relax the shape of the lens of your eye so that a clear image is projected onto the receiving surface—the retina—at the back of the eye. This is similar to adjusting the lens of a camera to get a clear photograph. Infants are born with the optical parts of their eyes fully capable of focusing objects at any distance, from the horizon to objects right in front of their nose. Yet many books about infant development still say that babies can only focus 7 to 10 inches from their face. While infants are able to focus at any distance, at first they do not have very good control of their ciliary muscles. This means that during the first 2 months of life they may not focus accurately. Sometimes they focus too close (in front of the object), sometimes too far (behind the object). After about 2 months of age infants begin to be able to focus clear images onto the retina. Yet their vision is still not clear! Something more is needed for clear vision.

The reason their vision isn’t clear can be answered by the second question, which asks about babies' ability to see detail, or their visual acuity. Visual acuity is dependent on the optical components of the eye (like the lens), but more importantly it is dependent on the functioning of the retina and the brain. This means that even thought the optics of the eye are mature, infants still can’t see as well as adults because brain areas responsible for vision are still immature. To use the camera analogy, the reason that infants' vision is blurry is because of the "film", not the lens. The retina (the film of the eye), in addition to other visual parts of the brain, is incompletely developed in infants.

[peacegirl]

I just googled this but I have to register to read the article, which I'm not going to do right now. If anyone wants to, let me know what it says. Maybe they're just talking about efferent motor nerves.

The basic anatomy of the optic nerve and visual ...
ity to be Homo sapiens. This has become increasingly true in recent centuries, ... the axons of the optic nerve. The nerve fiber layer con- ..... vision does not reside only in the eyes. I hope it is ... al system is a very complicated network of afferent and efferent connections spread through several regions of ...

iospress.metapress.com/index/RW1646264741L86L.pdf

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

This makes no sense, as in I can't even parse this to guess what you are trying to say.

This is a very important point. Lessans claims that if we were on the star Rigel we would NOT be seeing Columbus discovering America from the light itself. In other words, the light has to be connected to the object from which it is being reflected. A camera is taking a snapshot of the object, not the light. The light is allowing the film to form an outline of the object, but without the object, the film would develop nothing at all. Scientists are saying that light alone contains the information, which is false.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a very important point. Lessans claims that if we were on the star Rigel we would NOT be seeing Columbus discovering America from the light itself. In other words, the light has to be connected to the object from which it is being reflected. A camera is taking a snapshot of the object, not the light. The light is allowing the film to form an outline of the object, but without the object, the film would develop nothing at all. Scientists are saying that light alone contains the information, which is false.

Jesus, I just ... I mean .. words fail!

What the fuck are you talking about?

The light has to be connected to the object from which it is being reflected.

What does that even mean? What does connected mean, in the above sentence. Connected how?

A camera is taking a snapshot of the object, not the light.

You mean, if I take a photo of a tree, the tree physically uproots itself, enters the camera lens and presses itself upon the film? Is that what you mean?

If that's not what you mean, then what the fuck do you mean?

The light is allowing the film to form an outline of the object,

An outline of the object? What does that mean?

but without the object, the film would develop nothing at all.

Really? Well, if the tree isn't there, the film sure as shit isn't going to develop an image of a tree. Does that mean it will develop nothing at all? Oh, well, I don't think so. I'm pretty Goddamned sure that it will develop an image of a landscape without that particular tree.

Everything you say, and everything that Lessans says, when you go into detail, is total gibberish.

Is this why you aren't making replies in the thread by The Lone Ranger in which he explains how we see? Because you know that you can't reply to his (correct) description of how we see?

Is this why you won't asnwer Kael's post, and my posts, asking you to expalin, in detail, what Lessans means by his cockamamie "screens of undeniable substance" and other bullshit that he himself refuses to define?