A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually does because in all the other senses we cannot become conditioned.

I cannot become conditioned to liking certain music just because you tell me that certain sounds are beautiful even though I don't like those sounds.

I cannot become conditioned to liking certain foods just because you tell me that certain foods are tasty even though I don't like that food.

I cannot become conditioned to liking certain sensations just because you tell me that something feels good even though I don't like the way it feels.

I cannot become conditioned to liking certain smells just because you tell me that something smells good even though I don't like that smell.

But I can become conditioned to liking what you like when you tell me that certain features are beautiful (which gets a pleasurable reaction) and certain features are ugly (which gets a negative reaction). This has everything to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes.

Again, that's quite obviously not true. Nor would it specifically support efferent vision even if it was. The conditioning of value judgments is a matter of cognitive processing, quite distinct from any sensory mechanisms. What evidence do you have to show that such conditioning is only possible through the sense of vision? People can be and are socially conditioned to like certain music and foods which they would not otherwise like. And if you focus only on extreme examples then the same holds for vision, as no amount of conditioning is going to get me to enjoy the sight of a mangled human corpse or consider it beautiful.

Oh, and if the light at the camera (at the time of the photograph) never previously travelled, then how did it get there?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually does because in all the other senses we cannot become conditioned. I cannot become conditioned to liking certain music just because you tell me that certain sounds are beautiful even though you don't like those sounds. I cannot become conditioned to liking certain foods just because you tell me that certain foods are tasty even though you don't like that food. I cannot become conditioned to liking certain feelings just because you tell me that they feel good to you even though I don't like that feeling. I cannot become conditioned to liking certain smells just because you tell me that something smells good to you even though I don't like that smell. But I can become conditioned when you tell me over and over again that certain features are beautiful (which gets a pleasurable reaction), and certain features are ugly (which gets a negative reaction). This has everything to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes.

Even if anything you wrote were remotely true, neither efferent nor real-time vision is required to condition vision. This has already been pointed out to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Reality check: Brains can't look. They don't have eyes. People look. Looking out is vision. It's what people do using their eyes. The afferent model explains how this happens. The efferent non-model doesn't even try to explain vision. It just attributes it to the brain and leaves it at that.

Actually, you're wrong because the eyes don't see; they are the window that allows the person behind the eyes to look out. I never saw an eye that could see independently of the brain that lies behind it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Oh, and if the light at the camera (at the time of the photograph) never previously travelled, then how did it get there?

Think of the "field of view" as a box. It doesn't take any time for light to be present at the film if the object is in that limited space. Our visual range, or the camera's field of view, is virtually the same. Obviously, there's a lot of things a camera can do that the eyes can't, but for the purposes of our discussion, they are virtually the same. We're not talking about the speed of light and how long it actually takes to get from point A to point B.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Even if anything you wrote were remotely true, neither efferent nor real-time vision is required to condition vision. This has already been pointed out to you.

It absolutely does because the brain is tricked into thinking that words that do not symbolize reality, are actually real. This is due to the ability of the brain to project words that have no existence onto a screen of real substance. The problem is that the brain cannot differentiate between the two. The mechanism that allows the conditioning process to take place is in the brain, which is why the eyes work differently than the other sense organs.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, you're wrong because the eyes don't see; they are the window that allows the person behind the eyes to look out. I never saw an eye that could see independently of the brain that lies behind it.

I didn't say the eyes see. People do. And there is no person behind your eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think of the "field of view" as a box. It doesn't take any time for light to be present at the film if the object is in that limited space. Our visual range, or the camera's field of view, is virtually the same. Obviously, there's a lot of things a camera can do that the eyes can't, but for the purposes of our discussion, they are virtually the same. We're not talking about the speed of light and how long it actually takes to get from point A to point B.

Mmhmm. Now if the particular light at the camera (at the time of the photograph) never previously travelled, then how did it get there? Was it always there, floating around in a cloud? Or did it just materialize there?

If I tell you there is a car now in my garage, but that it did not get there from anywhere else, are there any other possibilities than that it was either built there or was always there?

[LadyShea]

I never saw an eye that could see independently of the brain that lies behind it

.

This is in fact a type of blindness. The eyes see just fine, but the brain cannot create an image or cannot interpret the data received by the eyes.

[Spacemonkey]

Anyone else amused by how she's taken such a beating on conscience that (of her own free will and in the direction of her greater satisfaction) she's actually chosen to go back to discussing vision rather than try to show that Lessans' presuppositions were supported?

[naturalist.atheist]

I wonder if peacegirl will claim that the tongue is efferent.

Blind Learn To See With Tongue - YouTube

Blind soldier learns to 'see' with his tongue ...

&feature=related

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, that's quite obviously not true.

It's very true.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nor would it specifically support efferent vision even if it was.

It absolutely does.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The conditioning of value judgments is a matter of cognitive processing, quite distinct from any sensory mechanisms.

And what, pray tell, is cognitive processing other than processing what we hear, see, feel, touch, and taste? That deserves 4 duh's.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What evidence do you have to show that such conditioning is only possible through the sense of vision? People can be and are socially conditioned to like certain music and foods which they would not otherwise like.

Being socially conditioned is just doing things that other people deem appropriate for the occasion, but being conditioned by words is not about trying to be socially acceptable; it's about an actual change in your perception.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if you focus only on extreme examples then the same holds for vision, as no amount of conditioning is going to get me to enjoy the sight of a mangled human corpse or consider it beautiful.

True, but no one is comparing a mangled corpse with someone's features. It is obvious that no one likes to see someone who is badly hurt (unless they are sadists), but we're not talking about that. We're talking about features that are put together in such a way that they are differentiated as beautiful and ugly. This originates from the belief that we can see this beauty with our very eyes. People never knew how this conditioning occurred.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Oh, and if the light at the camera (at the time of the photograph) never previously travelled, then how did it get there?

You obviously don't grasp my analogy with the box. The light is present the moment we see the object because the reflected light from that object does not travel to our eyes. It's already there.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Anyone else amused by how she's taken such a beating on conscience that (of her own free will and in the direction of her greater satisfaction) she's actually chosen to go back to discussing vision rather than try to show that Lessans' presuppositions were supported?

That I am still here posting demonstrates that I am endlessly amused at the freak show being provided by Peacegirl. I am surprised, though I know I shouldn't be, that peacegirl has gone back to vision after strongly stating that she did not want to talk about it. It's a bit surprising in that vision is a subject that has been well researched and well understood where conscience and presuppositions are more nebulous and possibly less well defined. It would seem that she would have a lot more wiggle room with the latter than the former.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Anyone else amused by how she's taken such a beating on conscience that (of her own free will and in the direction of her greater satisfaction) she's actually chosen to go back to discussing vision rather than try to show that Lessans' presuppositions were supported?

peacegirl doesn't see it as any kind of a defeat or setback. She doesn't understand what you've been posting to comprehend such a thing. All she sees is that people are not receiving the perfect knowledge of Lessans. You can go at it with her as many times as you like and you will get nowhere. She just is incapable of understanding much of what you post or even what Lessans wrote. Lessans could not have picked a worse advocate if he tried.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Anyone else amused by how she's taken such a beating on conscience that (of her own free will and in the direction of her greater satisfaction) she's actually chosen to go back to discussing vision rather than try to show that Lessans' presuppositions were supported?

I'm not going to talk anymore about presuppositions which Lessans never had. You are making Lessans' proof contingent upon your belief that he had misguided assumptions, which is ridiculous. I understand that you want empirical proof, but this is not the way to go about it. Before we even get to that point, you have to let me demonstrate what his observations were. You don't even know what they are, yet you're telling me that they are just assertions. How narrow-minded can someone be?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I wonder if peacegirl will claim that the tongue is efferent.

Blind Learn To See With Tongue - YouTube

Blind soldier learns to 'see' with his tongue - YouTube

This is a wonderful advance, but don't misconstrue what it actually does. Tongues do not see. They can provide information that allows a person to imagine what something looks like. Give it up NA. You're not going to win.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, you're wrong because the eyes don't see; they are the window that allows the person behind the eyes to look out. I never saw an eye that could see independently of the brain that lies behind it.

Gosh spacemoney, don't you understand!!! The eyes don't see, they are just a window, the brain has a second set of eyeballs behind the window eyes, and those eyes see the light by projecting it outward, efferently.

Geesh, makes perfect sense...... to a mentally ill person.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a wonderful advance, but don't misconstrue what it actually does. Tongues do not see. They can provide information that allows a person to imagine what something looks like. Give it up NA. You're not going to win.

Actually they do see. The brain is a learning machine that is constantly rewiring itself. And if an entire sense shuts down but there is an equivalent afferent data stream, like from the tongue, then it rewires itself and reroutes the data from the touch area to the visual cortex where the brain interprets it as sight as if the information came from the eyes.

They see with their tongue.

But Lessans didn't know anything about this because he was an ignorant cheap bastard and only read cheap old books from the late 1800 and early 1900 hundreds, and of course knew nothing about what was being learned in his time let alone what was learned after he died.

When Lessans died the world did not loose its ability to make keen observations. Not that Lessans ever made any himself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And what, pray tell, is cognitive processing other than processing what we hear, see, feel, touch, and taste? That deserves 4 duh's.

I didn't say cognitive processing is something other than processing what we perceive. I said the cognitive pocessing involved in the conditioning of value judgments remains distinct from our sensory mechanisms. You do realize that Lessans' talk of projection was metaphorical right? He wasn't saying that words come shooting out of people's eyes onto physical objects. There is no logical connection whatsoever between the projection of value and efferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being socially conditioned is just doing things that other people deem appropriate for the occasion, but being conditioned by words is not about trying to be socially acceptable; it's about an actual change in your perception.

True, but no one is comparing a mangled corpse with someone's features. It is obvious that no one likes to see someone who is badly hurt (unless they are sadists), but we're not talking about that. We're talking about features that are put together in such a way that they are differentiated as beautiful and ugly. This originates from the belief that we can see this beauty with our very eyes. People never knew how this conditioning occurred.

You haven't addressed my point at all, which was that the degree and kind of conditioning possible with vision is exactly matched by the other senses. Your claim to the contrary remains completely unsupported. Just like Lessans' presuppositions about conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You obviously don't grasp my analogy with the box. The light is present the moment we see the object because the reflected light from that object does not travel to our eyes. It's already there.

Again, cameras are the topic. Not eyes. And I already know there is light already at the camera when the photograph is taken. I'm asking you how it got there.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It actually does because in all the other senses we cannot become conditioned.
I cannot become conditioned to liking certain music just because you tell me that certain sounds are beautiful even though I don't like those sounds.
I cannot become conditioned to liking certain foods just because you tell me that certain foods are tasty even though I don't like that food.
I cannot become conditioned to liking certain sensations just because you tell me that something feels good even though I don't like the way it feels.
I cannot become conditioned to liking certain smells just because you tell me that something smells good even though I don't like that smell.
But I can become conditioned to liking what you like when you tell me that certain features are beautiful (which gets a pleasurable reaction) and certain features are ugly (which gets a negative reaction). This has everything to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes.

This is all really a bit of nonsense since all conditioning occure in the brain, and the brain can be fed by any of the 5 senses. Vision, hearing, smell, touch, and taste all contribute to the images and impressions about the external world but only the input from other people accomplishes the actual conditioning wherever the sensory input comes from. Anyone who has been a parent is familiar with the conditioning of children, usually to dislike certain foods, by other slightly older children.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Gosh spacemoney, don't you understand!!! The eyes don't see, they are just a window, the brain has a second set of eyeballs behind the window eyes, and those eyes see the light by projecting it outward, efferently.

Geesh, makes perfect sense...... to a mentally ill person.

It's not only a second set of eyes, but another whole person in there! Running around inside my brain and occasionally having a look-see out of my eye-windows! Amazing stuff.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say cognitive processing is something other than processing what we perceive. I said the cognitive pocessing involved in the conditioning of value judgments remains distinct from our sensory mechanisms. You do realize that Lessans' talk of projection was metaphorical right? He wasn't saying that words come shooting out of people's eyes onto physical objects. There is no logical connection whatsoever between the projection of value and efferent vision.

No she doesn't realize this. She has mush for brains. She can no better understand Lessans than she can understand us. And you can go around the mulberry bush with her as many times as you like and this situation will not change one little bit.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to talk anymore about presuppositions which Lessans never had.

Why are the things I listed not presuppositions of his presented work? Do his arguments work without them? Or did he support them in some part of his work which you have yet to share?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making Lessans' proof contingent upon your belief that he had misguided assumptions, which is ridiculous. I understand that you want empirical proof, but this is not the way to go about it.

I didn't ask for empirical proof. I asked you to show me where he supported the assumptions/observations about conscience I listed which his arguments require.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Before we even get to that point, you have to let me demonstrate what his observations were.

You haven't demonstrated that you understand what an observation even is. In fact, you've demonstrated that you don't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't even know yet you're telling me that they are just assertions. How narrow-minded can someone be?

I'd say you present the limiting case.

Was the light at the camera when the photograph is taken always there? Or did it magically materialize there out of thin air? How else did that particular light get there if it never travelled there from anywhere else?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say the eyes see. People do. And there is no person behind your eyes.

So who is behind the eyes if not YOU? I don't want to get into a metaphysical discussion about whether the "I" that is you exists or not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think of the "field of view" as a box. It doesn't take any time for light to be present at the film if the object is in that limited space. Our visual range, or the camera's field of view, is virtually the same.

Obviously, there's a lot of things a camera can do that the eyes can't, but for the purposes of our discussion, they are virtually the same. We're not talking about the speed of light and how long it actually takes to get from point A to point B.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Mmhmm. Now if the particular light at the camera (at the time of the photograph) never previously travelled, then how did it get there? Was it always there, floating around in a cloud? Or did it just materialize there?

It is there because the light that is being reflected is at the film instantly. The reason for this is only because sight is efferent. If it was afferent, my explanation wouldn't make any sense at all.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If I tell you there is a car now in my garage, but that it did not get there from anywhere else, are there any other possibilities than that it was either built there or was always there?

Of course the car had to get there from somewhere else, but we're talking about light and its relationship to the brain. This is not a fair analogy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
It is obvious that no one likes to see someone who is badly hurt (unless they are sadists), but we're not talking about that.

Ahh, Sadists, just how are they going to fit into the 'Golden Age' with no hurt, they are going to pretty miserable and that would be a great hurt to them.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So who is behind the eyes if not YOU? I don't want to get into a conversation about whether you or I exist or not.

Well of course. If it takes a person to see something and the eyes and the brain are not a person then there must be a "real" person back behind the eyes someplace.

But then one has to wonder how the inner person can see since they would have eyes and eyes don't see so the inner person would have to have an inner-inner person to do the actual seeing.

But then again the inner-inner person would have to have eyes to see and of course eyes can't see so they would have an inner-inner-inner person.

And so forth and so on.

It's eyeballs all the way down to consciousness.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So who is behind the eyes if not YOU? I don't want to get into a conversation about whether you or I exist or not.

There is no "who" behind your eyes. Only nerves, skull, and a brain. Your eyes are a part of you. You are not something separate from your eyes, sitting behind them and looking through them like a pair of binoculars.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is there because light is being reflected, but efferent vision allows us to see the object in real time based on what I just explained previously.

How does "being reflected" answer my question? I know what this means when it is used to say that the light travelled along, bounced off a surface and then arrived at the camera. But you've said the light at the camera never travelled to get there. So does this process of being "reflected" involve the light always having been there at the camera? Or does this process of "reflection" make that light materialize there instantly as the photograph is taken?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course the car had to get there from somewhere else, but we're talking about light and its relationship to the brain. This is not a fair analogy.

It's a perfect analogy. I can even make the exact same point in purely general terms applicable to both: If there is some thing X at some point L at some time T, and X never got to L from anywhere else, then are there any other possibilities than that X was either created/came into existence at L, or that X was always there at L?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is no "who" behind your eyes. Only nerves, skull, and a brain. Your eyes are a part of you. You are not something separate from your eyes, sitting behind them and looking through them like a pair of binoculars.

Au contrair, mon ami. According to Lessans, (perfect be his knowledge), sight is not like the other senses because it is "efferent". I'm sure with just a little prodding peacegirl can be made to copy paste yet another pile of Lessans dreck. And you are welcome to sort through all his chapped ass looking for his "keen observations".