A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey's argument is not sound.

Why not? Where is the false premise, specifically, that makes it unsound?

I am not lying. You're making a fool of yourself by your emotional tantrums. I believe Lessans was right, and until proven otherwise I will continue to believe he was right.

The eye is an afferent structure. It has no efferent nerves at all. How do explain that, peacegirl?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't think you're going to agree with anything he explains. You will keep calling them unsupported assertions when they are anything but.

A description is not what you're looking for, so it doesn't matter what he describes, you will say there's no proof.

He has already supported his claim by describing what he observed regarding conscience. You will continue to tell me that this is not proof. Maybe it's not in your book, but Lessans' explanation is sound. You might have to wait until the new world is here to get the proof you are looking for.

I didn't say that. I said we're not there yet. Let's first go through the main points of this lesson. That's how we learn new things.

Everyone answers everyone else's posts, so I can't always keep track.

I'm not going to continue then. This chapter is not that long, yet you have no patience to understand what this man is saying in his words. I really question your motivation for being here.

You've apparently completely lost track of what you're meant to be doing. So let me remind you:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

My position is that the following things are required for the soundness of his first non-discovery arguments, but that they are not actually argued-for or supported in his book:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

You have two options. You can either show us how his arguments will still work, even if these things are not true. Or you can show us where in his book he specifically argues for and supports them (rather than just asserting or assuming them).

If you can't do either, then they remain unsupported presuppositions.

You were denying that he made any presuppositions about conscience. Yet I've showed you exactly what his presuppositions were. To refute this you need to show that they were not presuppositions because either (i) his arguments do not require them to be true; or (ii) he did actually offer arguments or evidence in support of them.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, the premises have to be correct. But being that they are correct (which you can't see yet), the extension of these principles follow like a well oiled machine.

Here are some applicable definitions:

An observation can be anything you observe through your five senses: sight, smell, touch, hear and taste. Anything that you can describe would be considered an observation.

"Observations" usually imply that you are watching some process.

Observing is a disciplined form of attention; I think of it as a dialogue between the mind and the eyes (or ears, fingers and so on). Observing is treating something as a clue, not just a perception.

The observer has learned to ask, and answer, a systematic list of questions about what he/she perceives.

That was me, not Spacemonkey. Do try to get a grip peacegirl.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it's true that light carries the image to the camera, then the object should not have to be in range. If the object is in a direct line with the film but out of range, we should still be able to get an image from the light that the object is reflecting as long as there's no deflection, but we never do. Why is that?

Actually we do. That is precisely what is happening with Hubble Deep Space photographs. The real question is why you can't see that. The answer to that question has to do with how you define "in range".

Peacegirl's definition of "in range".

Eyesight
An object is said to be in range of our eysight if, given sufficient light, we can see it. If, given sufficient light, we cannot see an object then it is either not there or out of range.

Photography
An object is said to be in a camera's range if, given sufficient light, the camera can take a picture of it. If, given sufficient light, the camera cannot take a picture of the object that is because the object is either absent or out of range. If a picture of an object exists that is de facto evidence that the object was within the camera's range.

It follows from this definition that you will never see a picture of an object that was not "in range" when the picture was taken. If the picture exists then the object must have been "in range".

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why on Earth do you have to post the whole chapter? Can you not use small excerpts to answer targeted questions or address specific points? Why do we have to wade through a wall of text to find pertinent info?

She has to post the whole wall of text because; 1) she does not understand the question she is meant to be answering and so cannot recognize the specific text (should it happen to exist) that answers the question, 2) she lacks sufficient understanding of the text she is posting to enable her to indentify and isolate those passages which are relevant to the question she is meant to be answering and which she does not understand anyway, 3) she is absolutely convinced that Lessans' text contains (somwhere) the answers to every possible question, challenge and criticism that can conceivably be posed.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it's true that light carries the image to the camera, then the object should not have to be in range. If the object is in a direct line with the film but out of range, we should still be able to get an image from the light that the object is reflecting as long as there's no deflection, but we never do. Why is that?

How many times has this been explained to you. What the hell do you think a telescope does?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl's definition of "in range".

Eyesight
An object is said to be in range of our eysight if, given sufficient light, we can see it. If, given sufficient light, we cannot see an object then it is either not there or out of range.

Angakuk, I would think that by now you would understand peacegirl better. This can't be her definition because it is coherent. It has causal connections and it describes limits. peacegirl's illness does not permit her reasoning to have any of those things.

[Angakuk]

I was just cleaning it up for mass consumption.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Optics doesn't explain why we don't see an image from an object that is out of range but is reflecting light. The word "should" is perfectly rational. Based on afferent sight, we should be able to resolve an image from light without the object having to be in view. But this never happens.

Actually it does happen, for example the moons of Jupiter pass out of view behind Jupiter, but the light comeing from those moons allow us to see them and take a picture of them for a time after they have moved 'out of range' (out of a direct line of sight). So this does happen just as afferent vision predicts.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl is useing the phrase "out of Range' in reference to vision as a stick to muddy the waters. It seems that she really means 'too far away' or 'out of the line of sight'. Indeed if an object is too far away we will not be able to see it, and if it is out of the line of sight, (say around the corner of a building) we will not be able to see it. Peacegirl seems to claim that afferent vision states that if an object is illuminated the light will somehow find its way to the camera or the eye no matter how far away it is or if some other object is obstructing it. The concept that light travels in a straight line and that it difuses over great distance is simply ignored since that does not enter into efferent vision and she has problems seperating the two concepts. She accepts efferent vision as absolutely true and therefore afferent vision must be contemplated as a variation of efferent vision. Peacegirl seems to be saying that afferent vision claims that if an object is illuminated the light will somehow travel to the eye or camera in spite of distance or obstructions, but this is a property of efferent vision, which is imbedded in Peacegirls brain, and not a property of afferent vision. Afferent vision does not make the claims Peacegirl is proposing, just so that she can disprove it, so it is just a strawman that she is attacking to support her efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those were not presuppositions Spacemonkey. He did not presuppose that...

conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

The properties of conscience became visible only after making his discovery, but he never assumed anything beforehand. I'm losing interest in this thread because you refuse to let me cut and paste the things I know are important for understanding. I will not corrupt this chapter by choosing certain excerpts and not others because it will cause major loopholes. I'm also not interested in proving that the premises upon which his discovery is based are valid. You will never accept that his premises are correct because you believe they are mere assertions, so this whole discussion is meaningless.

[Angakuk]

You do not need anyone's permission to cut and paste whatever you like.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Those were not presuppositions Spacemonkey. He did not presuppose that...

conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

Yes he did. But are you saying he did not presuppose these things because his arguments do not require them to be true? Or because he argued for and supported these things in his book? Either way you will need to support your answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The properties of conscience became visible only after making his discovery, but he never assumed anything beforehand. I'm losing interest in this thread because you refuse to let me cut and paste the things I know are important for understanding. I will not corrupt this chapter by choosing certain excerpts and not others because it will cause major loopholes.

Copypasting the entire chapter is neither necessary nor sufficient for addressing my concerns. Even if you were to post it all, that still won't show me specifically where in the chapter you think he is supporting any of these presuppositions listed above.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm also not interested in proving that the premises upon which his discovery is based are valid. You will never accept that his premises are correct because you believe they are mere assertions, so this whole discussion is meaningless.

If you don't try to prove his premises then everyone will simply continue to reject his arguments as unsound. That's what happens when you begin an argument from premises which others do not find convincing. It makes no difference that you think those premises were true and somehow accurately 'observed'. If other people don't agree with them, you still need to give them some reason to do so. And you are of course free to give up and leave anytime you choose (or rather anytime your mental illness permits you to do so), just as no-one can prevent you from copypasting whatever you want (no matter how counterproductive and pointless it may be).

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

(no matter how counterproductive and pointless).

I really think you have come up with two very good discriptives of Peacegirl's (Janis Rafael, daughter of Seymour Lessans, sole disiple of Lesanology) presentation of Lessans book.

[Vivisectus]

Not so! If not for this, we would not have the sexy jackets and translucent robes, and the amazing field of view that determines how far you can see, without any explanation WHY it does so and only defined by "if you can see it or not".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Why not? Where is the false premise, specifically, that makes it unsound?

Here it is again: That you can't feel remorse for an action if you can't judge that same action as blameworthy in others. That's erroneous, and if Spacemonkey starts off with this premise he will end up with a false conclusion.

I am not lying. You're making a fool of yourself by your emotional tantrums. I believe Lessans was right, and until proven otherwise I will continue to believe he was right.

Originally Posted by davidm

The eye is an afferent structure. It has no efferent nerves at all. How do explain that, peacegirl?

The eye might be an afferent structure, but the brain can still be using the eyes to look through. To figure out exactly how this works is not necessary at this point. All I'm saying is that it cannot be ruled out just because you can't figure out exactly how the brain is capable of doing this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You do not need anyone's permission to cut and paste whatever you like.

Thanks Angakuk!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

How many times has this been explained to you. What the hell do you think a telescope does?

A telescope does two things. It gathers light from faint distant objects and it magnifies those objects. There are different telescope designs to do this, but the basic idea remains the same in all of them – a lens or mirror gathers light and concentrates it so the image can be examined by a magnifying eyepiece.
Remember, however, that the main function of a telescope is to gather light. Making things a lot bigger is often not as important as you might think. Many beginners mistakenly place too much emphasis on a telescope’s magnification.

Where does this conflict with anything? A telescope helps to bring the object within visual range through gathering light so the object is bright enough to be seen which is one of the conditions of efferent sight (i.e., something has to be bright enough, or we can't see it), or it magnifies the object which meets the requirement of efferent sight (i.e., something has to be large enough in order to see it). If light is carrying the image to the eye, we shouldn't need a telescope at all because the reflected image would be traveling toward us at breakneck speed and getting brighter and larger as it enters our visual field.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A telescope does two things. It gathers light from faint distant objects and it magnifies those objects. There are different telescope designs to do this, but the basic idea remains the same in all of them – a lens or mirror gathers light and concentrates it so the image can be examined by a magnifying eyepiece.
Remember, however, that the main function of a telescope is to gather light. Making things a lot bigger is often not as important as you might think. Many beginners mistakenly place too much emphasis on a telescope’s magnification.

Where does this conflict with anything? A telescope helps to bring the object within visual range through gathering light so the object is bright enough to be seen which is one of the conditions of efferent sight (i.e., something has to be bright enough, or we can't see it), or it magnifies the object which meets the requirement of efferent sight (i.e., something has to be large enough in order to see it). If light is carrying the image to the eye, we shouldn't need a telescope at all because the reflected image would be traveling toward us at breakneck speed and getting brighter and larger as it enters our visual field.

I love this bit. You think a life-sized image somehow travels, carried by light?

This is not what happens. What happens is that light is detected, and that an image is created from what is detected by the little rods and cones in the eye. Images do not travel in the normal model of sight. Only light travels in this scenario. That you do not seem to understand this is incredibly funny, as even my 6-year old can understand the concept. How did you make it through college and avoid learning this? It is so very basic.

As for an image getting bigger: how do you explain perspective from an efferent sight point of view? We know exactly what makes distant objects seem smaller under our current model. What causes it in efferent sight?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've apparently completely lost track of what you're meant to be doing. So let me remind you:

Those were not presuppositions Spacemonkey. He did not presuppose that...

conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes he did. But are you saying he did not presuppose these things because his arguments do not require them to be true? Or because he argued for and supported these things in his book? Either way you will need to support your answer.

First of all, it's not an argument. He isn't arguing for anything. He is observing something. If I observe how a car works, and you keep saying prove it, of course, the empirical evidence is the ultimate proof that my observations are correct. At this point, Lessans is only describing his observations as to how conscience works (just like the car example). It obviously hasn't been empirically tested on a global scale (it would have been impossible during Lessans' lifetime), but that does not mean his observations are unsound.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The properties of conscience became visible only after making his discovery, but he never assumed anything beforehand. I'm losing interest in this thread because you refuse to let me cut and paste the things I know are important for understanding. I will not corrupt this chapter by choosing certain excerpts and not others because it will cause major loopholes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Copypasting the entire chapter is neither necessary nor sufficient for addressing my concerns. Even if you were to post it all, that still won't show me specifically where in the chapter you think he is supporting any of these presuppositions listed above.

I know that's what you were going to say. I suggest you don't read any of the book. You will have to wait until these principles are put into practice to finally admit that his observations were spot on all along.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm also not interested in proving that the premises upon which his discovery is based are valid. You will never accept that his premises are correct because you believe they are mere assertions, so this whole discussion is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you don't try to prove his premises then everyone will simply continue to reject his arguments as unsound. That's what happens when you begin an argument from premises which others do not find convincing. It makes no difference that you think those premises were true and somehow accurately 'observed'. If other people don't agree with them, you still need to give them some reason to do so. And you are of course free to give up and leave anytime you choose (or rather anytime your mental illness permits you to do so), just as no-one can prevent you from copypasting whatever you want (no matter how counterproductive and pointless it may be).

Why are you getting nasty on me Spacemonkey? All you are is a follower of what other people are saying such as NA. Do I say you that you have a mental illness just because you are not a good investigator but think you're top notch? I know you wish I would run away with my tail between my legs so you can proclaim yourself the fake winner. Even if I do leave, you don't come close to being the great philosopher you think you are.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Vivisectus;1020975]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A telescope does two things. It gathers light from faint distant objects and it magnifies those objects. There are different telescope designs to do this, but the basic idea remains the same in all of them – a lens or mirror gathers light and concentrates it so the image can be examined by a magnifying eyepiece.
Remember, however, that the main function of a telescope is to gather light. Making things a lot bigger is often not as important as you might think. Many beginners mistakenly place too much emphasis on a telescope’s magnification.

Where does this conflict with anything? A telescope helps to bring the object within visual range through gathering light so the object is bright enough to be seen which is one of the conditions of efferent sight (i.e., something has to be bright enough, or we can't see it), or it magnifies the object which meets the requirement of efferent sight (i.e., something has to be large enough in order to see it). If light is carrying the image to the eye, we shouldn't need a telescope at all because the reflected image would be traveling toward us at breakneck speed and getting brighter and larger as it enters our visual field.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I love this bit. You think a life-sized image somehow travels, carried by light?

This is not what happens. What happens is that light is detected, and that an image is created from what is detected by the little rods and cones in the eye. Images do not travel in the normal model of sight. Only light travels in this scenario. That you do not seem to understand this is incredibly funny, as even my 6-year old can understand the concept. How did you make it through college and avoid learning this? It is so very basic.

Anyone who has read what I have written will know that I am not literally saying that light carries images, but it's an easier way to express it. Either way, it doesn't matter because whether I say it your way or my way, it means the same thing, and it's wrong if Lessans is right about the eyes.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As for an image getting bigger: how do you explain perspective from an efferent sight point of view? We know exactly what makes distant objects seem smaller under our current model. What causes it in efferent sight?

You mean like an illusion that something is bigger? It would work the same way because the brain can be tricked into seeing something that looks larger by how it's presented. Efferent vision doesn't change anything in this regard.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Where does this conflict with anything? A telescope helps to bring the object within visual range through gathering light so the object is bright enough to be seen which is one of the conditions of efferent sight (i.e., something has to be bright enough, or we can't see it), or it magnifies the object which meets the requirement of efferent sight (i.e., something has to be large enough in order to see it). If light is carrying the image to the eye, we shouldn't need a telescope at all because the reflected image would be traveling toward us at breakneck speed and getting brighter and larger as it enters our visual field.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I love this bit. You think a life-sized image somehow travels, carried by light?

This is not what happens. What happens is that light is detected, and that an image is created from what is detected by the little rods and cones in the eye. Images do not travel in the normal model of sight. Only light travels in this scenario. That you do not seem to understand this is incredibly funny, as even my 6-year old can understand the concept. How did you make it through college and avoid learning this? It is so very basic.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Anyone who has read what I have written will know that I am not literally saying that light carries images, but it's an easier way to express it. Either way, it doesn't matter because whether I say it your way or my way, it means the same thing, and it's wrong if Lessans is right about the eyes.

No, anyone who read what you said can clearly read that you even make an argument against the normal theory of sight based on the idea that images travel along with light:

If light is carrying the image to the eye, we shouldn't need a telescope at all because the reflected image would be traveling toward us at breakneck speed and getting brighter and larger as it enters our visual field

So not only is it not just another way of expressing the same concept, you were trying to make a point based on the difference. You really were thinking like that, and now you are trying to pretend you were not. Not very honest of you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As for an image getting bigger: how do you explain perspective from an efferent sight point of view? We know exactly what makes distant objects seem smaller under our current model. What causes it in efferent sight?

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You mean like an illusion that something is bigger? It would work the same way because the brain can be tricked into seeing something that looks larger by how it's presented. Efferent vision doesn't change anything in this regard.

There is a lot more to perspective than that. In the normal theory of sight we can calculate accurately what an object will look like at a certain distance seen through the human eye, and what it will look like through a certain lens.

We can do this, because all we have to do is calculate the way the light would travel from the source to the eyes.

A short, wide-angle lens will exaggerate perspective and make tall buildings appear to get narrower near the top. A long, narrow-angle lens will flatten the perspective, and can make groups of objects seem closer together because they take away some of the sense of depth out of the resulting image.

Unless we shoot some kind of sight-rays from our eyes, there is nothing to be redirected in the efferent model. So what causes perspective? It cannot just be our brain, because then the lenses would not work - and they do!

So what do these lenses redirect, and what causes perspective in the efferent model?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Where does this conflict with anything? A telescope helps to bring the object within visual range through gathering light so the object is bright enough to be seen which is one of the conditions of efferent sight (i.e., something has to be bright enough, or we can't see it), or it magnifies the object which meets the requirement of efferent sight (i.e., something has to be large enough in order to see it). If light is carrying the image to the eye, we shouldn't need a telescope at all because the reflected image would be traveling toward us at breakneck speed and getting brighter and larger as it enters our visual field.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I love this bit. You think a life-sized image somehow travels, carried by light?

This is not what happens. What happens is that light is detected, and that an image is created from what is detected by the little rods and cones in the eye. Images do not travel in the normal model of sight. Only light travels in this scenario. That you do not seem to understand this is incredibly funny, as even my 6-year old can understand the concept. How did you make it through college and avoid learning this? It is so very basic.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Anyone who has read what I have written will know that I am not literally saying that light carries images, but it's an easier way to express it. Either way, it doesn't matter because whether I say it your way or my way, it means the same thing, and it's wrong if Lessans is right about the eyes.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, anyone who read what you said can clearly read that you even make an argument against the normal theory of sight based on the idea that images travel along with light:

If light is carrying the image to the eye, we shouldn't need a telescope at all because the reflected image would be traveling toward us at breakneck speed and getting brighter and larger as it enters our visual field

So not only is it not just another way of expressing the same concept, you were trying to make a point based on the difference. You really were thinking like that, and now you are trying to pretend you were not. Not very honest of you.

What the hell are you talking about? You're purposely confusing the issue to make your concept of afferent vision look squeaky clean.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As for an image getting bigger: how do you explain perspective from an efferent sight point of view? We know exactly what makes distant objects seem smaller under our current model. What causes it in efferent sight?

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You mean like an illusion that something is bigger? It would work the same way because the brain can be tricked into seeing something that looks larger by how it's presented. Efferent vision doesn't change anything in this regard.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is a lot more to perspective than that. In the normal theory of sight we can calculate accurately what an object will look like at a certain distance seen through the human eye, and what it will look like through a certain lens.

We can do this, because all we have to do is calculate the way the light would travel from the source to the eyes.

Noooo, we can calculate what an object will look like because of its actual distance, not because of the light that traverses a certain distance.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

A short, wide-angle lens will exaggerate perspective and make tall buildings appear to get narrower near the top. A long, narrow-angle lens will flatten the perspective, and can make groups of objects seem closer together because they take away some of the sense of depth out of the resulting image.

I was referring to the naked eye, not a camera lens. A camera's lens can do all kinds of things to make an object appear what it's not. What does this have to do with anything Vivisecus? You can airbrush a photograph too. Does this prove that the eyes are afferent?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Unless we shoot some kind of sight-rays from our eyes, there is nothing to be redirected in the efferent model. So what causes perspective? It cannot just be our brain, because then the lenses would not work - and they do!

I swear I don't know what's so difficult. Whatever light does in the afferent model does the same thing in the efferent model. It's just reverse. For your information: Lenses work in the same way! Eyes work in the same way! And brains work according to the way they are wired!!!!

[Vivisectus]

Noooo, we can calculate what an object will look like because of its actual distance, not because of the light that traverses a certain distance.

But what are we calculating in efferent vision? In the normal model, the distance is important because the light has to travel that far, and is redirected by lenses, as well as the lens of the eye.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I was referring to the naked eye, not a camera lens. A camera's lens can do all kinds of things to make an object appear what it's not. What does this have to do with anything Vivisecus? You can airbrush a photograph too. Does this prove that the eyes are afferent?

Same difference: the eye also has a lens, and the eye also perceives things differently because of perspective. A long pole seems to get narrower near the top if it is very tall. We can explain this in the normal model, and even predict how a straight pole will be perceived as narrower near the top... and how much! But how is it explained in the efferent model?

Also, if lenses can make things seem different, how do you explain this difference? What do they redirect to make what we detect different?

What does airbrushing have to do with anything? Are you confusing yourself about images again?

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I swear I don't know what's so difficult. Whatever light does in the afferent model does the same thing in the efferent model. It's just reverse. For your information: Lenses work in the same way! Eyes work in the same way! And brains work according to the way they are wired!!!!

That does not explain perspective - perspective is caused by the way light travels from that which we see, through the lens of the eye and onto our retina. What causes it in efferent vision? Nothing is coming in, and we somehow directly observe the object. So why is there such a thing as perspective at all then? Where does it come from?

If it is "just reverse", then something shoots out of our eyes, which is redirected by lenses? That means we are back to magic sight-rays, which makes no sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But what are we calculating in efferent vision? In the normal model, the distance is important because the light has to travel that far, and is redirected by lenses, as well as the lens of the eye.

Same difference: the eye also has a lens, and the eye also perceives things differently because of perspective. A long pole seems to get narrower near the top if it is very tall. We can explain this in the normal model, and even predict how a straight pole will be perceived as narrower near the top... and how much! But how is it explained in the efferent model?

Also, if lenses can make things seem different, how do you explain this difference? What do they redirect to make what we detect different?

What does airbrushing have to do with anything? Are you confusing yourself about images again?

We're still using the same lens, so we will see the pole seem to get narrower near the top. This doesn't change in the efferent model because the lens of our eyes or camera remains the same. In either model, it is up to our brain to understand the illusion that the lens creates. I used the example of airbrushing to indicate that we can be fooled by an illusion, but that doesn't change reality.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I swear I don't know what's so difficult. Whatever light does in the afferent model does the same thing in the efferent model. It's just reverse. For your information: Lenses work in the same way! Eyes work in the same way! And brains work according to the way they are wired!!!!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That does not explain perspective - perspective is caused by the way light travels from that which we see, through the lens of the eye and onto our retina. What causes it in efferent vision? Nothing is coming in, and we somehow directly observe the object. So why is there such a thing as perspective at all then? Where does it come from?

We observe the object because of light. You are making more out of this than what needs to be. We cannot see without the pathway to the object, so what we see would remain exactly the same. Just as we would need to interpret what we see in the afferent model, we would need to interpret what we see in the efferent model based on physics.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If it is "just reverse", then something shoots out of our eyes, which is redirected by lenses? That means we are back to magic sight-rays, which makes no sense.

Nothing shoots out of our eyes. This is not a science fiction movie Vivisectus. If sight is efferent, as Lessans claimed, the space between the object and the eye is not the same as the space between the object and the eye in afferent vision. You have to think in terms of visual range for this to make sense. If you don't see this difference, it's no wonder you think this is nonsense. But it's not.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks Angakuk!

Except that you have revealed yourself yet again to be a liar. You said that you wouldn't cut and paste Lessans' drivel anymore unless somebody asked you to do so.

Nobody asked you to do so.

Of course, this is of a piece with your constant promises to leave the forum. Yet, here you are, still babbling away.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Except that you have revealed yourself yet again to be a liar. You said that you wouldn't cut and paste Lessans' drivel anymore unless somebody asked you to do so.

Nobody asked you to do so.

Of course, this is of a piece with your constant promises to leave the forum. Yet, here you are, still babbling away.

You hate that I'm here because you feel compelled to defend your philosophy so that no one will listen to me, but it won't work because this is not my philosophy. Let go David and feel free to enjoy your life. Relax! As far as this thread is concerned, people have the right to accept or reject what is being said. You don't have the power to prevent truth from revealing itself. These are God's laws, and no person (not even you) can stop progress.