A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Efferent means signals go out. But, with the eye, they don't. Dishonest as you are, you still refuse even to deal with the fact that the eye has no efferent structures whatsoever. This is not an assumption, because "Aristotle said so," as the buffoon Lessans claimed, but an observed, carefully documented scientific fact.

This also speaks to another point: What is the relation between so-called "efferent vision" and real-time vision? None! If vision were efferent, then there would be some outgoing signals -- but sight would still necessarily be delayed.

So, no signals go out, eh? Then what the hell do you mean by efferent seeing? You don't even know, do you?

So the space between objects is different if seeing is "efferent?" WTF? Does the babble just involuntarily come out of you, beyond your control? The distance from the earth to the sun is different if seeing is efferent rather than afferent? Rully? Clue us in! Tell us how far it is to the sun if seeing is efferent, and how far it is to the sun if seeing is afferent!



My God, you are the gift that keeps on giving, when it comes to utter twaddle.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

But we are talking about what causes the illusion. Why does a lens work at all in efferent vision, as nothing travels from the object to the eye? What does the lens redirect to cause the illusion? It cannot be light, because if that was the case then observation would not be instant.

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.

That does not explain why we still see a pole narrower at the top, or any of the other instances of perspective. Nor does it explain why lenses change perspective in efferent vision - just what is it they redirect to cause the effect? In fact, I do not see how it explains anything at all. What on earth are you going on about?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You hate that I'm here because you feel compelled to have 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. If you are right, you don't have to defend it as you are. 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 stop this process because truth always wins. These are God's laws, and no person (not even you) can stop progress.

In other words, you lied again, and now are trying to redirect the discussion to something else to cover up your dishonesty.

What I hate are dishonest con artists like you, and myself and the rest of us are "compelled" in a certain sort of way, to respond to you, because the freak show that you have put on is on the order of massive traffic pile-up that people feel compelled to rubberneck at.

Now then, peacegirl, I will again ask you this question that you have never answered: If there is no delayed seeing, if seeing is in real-time, how come we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time, corresponding exactly to the speed of light, which proves that we see light, and the object off of which light reflects, in delayed time?

When are you going to answer this question, peacegirl?

[davidm]

Peacegirl, you seem not to have answered the question below. Why is that?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Just answer the question, Peacegirl. Seriously. Just answer it.

4. Did the light present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken previously travel from the object to get there?

Lessans' claims do not make sense. As demonstrated by the fact that you can't answer simple questions like the one above without constantly contradicting yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, you seem not to have answered the question below. Why is that?

No David, that's not how this knowledge was discovered. You can't use this logic, or else you will get trapped by your limited understanding of how the brain works.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, that's not how this knowledge was discovered. You can't use this logic, or else you will get trapped by your limited understanding of how the brain works.

Whereas having next to no knowledge about science, physics, philosophy, mathematics and psychology made Lessans perfectly suited to unilaterally re-write all those fields with poorly or unsupported claims.

Every time I think you cannot be any funnier you surprise me, Peacegirl.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by davidm

WTF? Does the babble just involuntarily come out of you, beyond your control?

Yes, I think we've established that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Whereas having next to no knowledge about science, physics, philosophy, mathematics and psychology made Lessans perfectly suited to unilaterally re-write all those fields with poorly or unsupported claims.

Every time I think you cannot be any funnier you surprise me, Peacegirl.

He did not rewrite physics, mathematics, science, philosophy, or psychology for that matter. He added to it. The only thing that changes is that we see in the present tense, not in the past tense. Everything else remains the same, which I've said numerous times.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

When we look at an object how does it get closer to the eye if, as you say, efferent vision is true, and just how much closer is it than when we measure that distance. Say you are at one end of a football field and looking at an object at the other end, how close is that object when you look efferently, what is the efferent visual range? when you look efferently is it half the distance? a quarter the distance? or is it in direct contact, visually, with your eye?

[davidm]

Just answer the question, peacegirl. Seriously. Just answer it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Just answer the question, Peacegirl. Seriously. Just answer it.

4. Did the light present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken previously travel from the object to get there?

Don't insult our intelligence with your little con games and cop outs. You claim Lessans has a valid model of light. What is the answer to the above question, under HIS MODEL?



Also, What about the moons of Jupiter?

And! Bonus question! What do you mean when you say that the distance between the eye and distant objects is different under Lessans' claims about how we see? What does that mean, peacegirl? That distances in space magically change, depending on the structure of the eye? How do they do that, peacegirl?

Specifically:

What is the distance between the eye and the sun under 1.) Afferent sight, and 2.)under Lessans claims about how we see? How do the distances change, what ARE the distances, and how did you make these calculations based upon his writing? Please show your work, including any and all maths.

Thanks! These questions will be reposted until they receive a suitable reply.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not rewrite physics, mathematics, science, philosophy, or psychology for that matter. He added to it. The only thing that changes is that we see in the present tense, not in the past tense. Everything else remains the same, which I've said numerous times.

No, what you have done is completely ignore the fact that that is impossible by simply declaring that it is possible. Like when you declared that sight does not carry information - another brilliant one! - or your vague mumbling about lenses that magically focus outward. Anything, no matter how humorously feeble, to allow you to hang on to this idea.

Just like you refuse to simply say "I don't know" when I ask you to tell me what it is that lenses redirect in efferent sight! It is another giant hole in the book. But that would mean admitting there is something wrong with it, and you just won't allow yourself to do so, even though you know damn well you are just flailing, waffling and stringing mumbo-jumbo together.

Because you do not know how the hell efferent sight works either - no-one does! It is simply claimed in the book and just left there, because your father simply did not realize he was contradicting just about everything we know about physics... down to causality itself, which is funny as hell as he based his silly system on determinism.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Efferent means signals go out. But, with the eye, they don't. Dishonest as you are, you still refuse even to deal with the fact that the eye has no efferent structures whatsoever. This is not an assumption, because "Aristotle said so," as the buffoon Lessans claimed, but an observed, carefully documented scientific fact.

The eyes don't have to have efferent structures for the brain to use them to look out at the world as it exists.

Originally Posted by davidm

This also speaks to another point: What is the relation between so-called "efferent vision" and real-time vision? None! If vision were efferent, then there would be some outgoing signals -- but sight would still necessarily be delayed.

There are no outgoing signals. Sight would not be delayed because there is no waiting for light to arrive for an image to be seen.

Originally Posted by davidm

So, no signals go out, eh? Then what the hell do you mean by efferent seeing? You don't even know, do you?

No signals are required. Efferent sight is looking at the world through the eyes, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by davidm

So the space between objects is different if seeing is "efferent?" WTF? Does the babble just involuntarily come out of you, beyond your control? The distance from the earth to the sun is different if seeing is efferent rather than afferent? Rully? Clue us in! Tell us how far it is to the sun if seeing is efferent, and how far it is to the sun if seeing is afferent!

I've explained this already. It's not that distance is any closer in efferent vision, but if it's true that the object has to be in range, then that space always remains the same. The only requirements are that the object has to be large enough and bright enough. If it meets those requirements, then the light coming from that object is already present. This does not negate the fact that it takes 8.3 minutes for the Sun's photons to reach Earth.

Originally Posted by davidm

My God, you are the gift that keeps on giving, when it comes to utter twaddle.

The concept of efferent vision is not twaddle just because it's new to you and you've grown up with the idea that afferent vision is a fact.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not rewrite physics, mathematics, science, philosophy, or psychology for that matter. He added to it. The only thing that changes is that we see in the present tense, not in the past tense. Everything else remains the same, which I've said numerous times.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, what you have done is completely ignore the fact that that is impossible by simply declaring that it is possible. Like when you declared that sight does not carry information - another brilliant one! - or your vague mumbling about lenses that magically focus outward. Anything, no matter how humorously feeble, to allow you to hang on to this idea.

Light is a wavelength, and that wavelength has information, but when it strikes the retina it doesn't get transduced into signals that are then interpreted by the brain. That's where the fallacy lies if Lessans' claims are correct.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Just like you refuse to simply say "I don't know" when I ask you to tell me what it is that lenses redirect in efferent sight! It is another giant hole in the book. But that would mean admitting there is something wrong with it, and you just won't allow yourself to do so, even though you know damn well you are just flailing, waffling and stringing mumbo-jumbo together.

Just because Lessans didn't go into detail regarding the mechanisms involved in efferent sight doesn't make his observations irrational. There is no hole in the book. Lenses do what they are suppose to do. They allow us to focus the light so we can see the world through the window of the eyes.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Because you do not know how the hell efferent sight works either - no-one does! It is simply claimed in the book and just left there, because your father simply did not realize he was contradicting just about everything we know about physics... down to causality itself, which is funny as hell as he based his silly system on determinism.

I said all along that his observations came indirectly. He didn't go out looking to prove that we see efferently. He was not a physicist, but he didn't have to be. Because he wasn't in the field it allowed him to look at this from a different perspective. There is nothing silly about creating a better world for all humanity.

[LadyShea]

The eyes don't have to have efferent structures for the brain to use them to look out at the world as it exists.

Yes, that is what efferent means. From the brain, OUT. If there are no structures that allow the brain to look out, then there can be no efferent vision..

[Vivisectus]

[

QUOTE=peacegirl;1021070]

The eyes don't have to have efferent structures for the brain to use them to look out at the world as it exists.

LOL it just works by magic.

There are no outgoing signals. Sight would not be delayed because there is no waiting for light to arrive for an image to be seen.

LOLLER Because it happens by magic!

No signals are required. Efferent sight is looking at the world through the eyes, not the other way around.

It just works because of... it works by... it just sort of... she doesn't know. Magic!

I've explained this already. It's not that distance is any closer in efferent vision, but if it's true that the object has to be in range, then that space always remains the same. The only requirements are that the object has to be large enough and bright enough. If it meets those requirements, then the light coming from that object is already present. This does not negate the fact that it takes 8.3 minutes for the Sun's photons to reach Earth.

LOOOL - So if an object is big enough and bright enough then the light "of that object" is already there to see it with. But if the sun is turned on then for 8 minutes there is no light here, but we will see it anyway because... ermmm... the light only needs to be at the object, not at the eyes! Only not that either because then we cannot explain cameras and the time delay....

The concept of efferent vision is not twaddle just because it's new to you and you've grown up with the idea that afferent vision is a fact.

It is so much twaddle that you, the only proponent of it, do not even have the slightest clue how it is supposed to work.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is a wavelength, and that wavelength has information, but when it strikes the retina it doesn't get transduced into signals that are then interpreted by the brain.

Your evidence in support of this claim is...?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your evidence in support of this claim is...?

Because Lessans said so, - so there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

In other words, you lied again, and now are trying to redirect the discussion to something else to cover up your dishonesty.

What I hate are dishonest con artists like you, and myself and the rest of us are "compelled" in a certain sort of way, to respond to you, because the freak show that you have put on is on the order of massive traffic pile-up that people feel compelled to rubberneck at.

Now then, peacegirl, I will again ask you this question that you have never answered: If there is no delayed seeing, if seeing is in real-time, how come we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time, corresponding exactly to the speed of light, which proves that we see light, and the object off of which light reflects, in delayed time?

When are you going to answer this question, peacegirl?

I don't know the reason. It could be a coincidence. Maybe something else is going on that can explain it. How do you know positively that we're seeing a delayed image from light just because the moon's appearance corresponds with the timing of the speed of light? It sounds pretty circumstantial to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your evidence in support of this claim is...?

My evidence is how the brain is able to project words (that contain values) onto real substance that have no corresponding accuracy. If sight was afferent, the brain could not do this. I'm sure no one wants me to go over Chapter Four again.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know the reason.

Oh, boy, finally an admission that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about! Great! I'll tell you the reason. It's simple. What Lessans wrote about real-time seeing was wrong, which is precisely what the moons of Jupiter example (among hundreds of others) proves.

It could be a coincidence.

A coincidence that has been observed on every single occasion for hundreds of years?

Maybe something else is going on that can explain it. How do you know positively that we're seeing a delayed image from light just because the moon's appearance corresponds with the timing of the speed of light? It sounds pretty circumstantial to me.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My evidence is how the brain is able to project words (that contain values) onto real substance that have no corresponding accuracy. If sight was afferent, the brain could not do this. I'm sure no one wants me to go over Chapter Four again.

What does the above even mean? It is meaningless world salad. Moreover, you continue to weasel out of confronting the fact that the eye has been observed, studied, dissected and probed down to the atomic level. Something you would know, if you had not dishonestly refused to read The Lone Ranger's essay. (He who has in fact dissected eyes.) And the results are in: the eye is anatomically and empirically observed to behave afferently, not efferently. This is a true "astute observation" that is just as valid as the observation that the world is sphere-like and NOT flat.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes don't have to have efferent structures for the brain to use them to look out at the world as it exists.

So the eye is efferent without efferent structures, peacegirl says! And the atom is an atom without atomic structures, and water is water without water molecules, and ...

[peacegirl]

QUOTE=peacegirl;1021070]

The eyes don't have to have efferent structures for the brain to use them to look out at the world as it exists.

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL it just works by magic.

So you must think that having a conscience is magic too because we can't find the exact mechanism in the structure of the brain.

There are no outgoing signals. Sight would not be delayed because there is no waiting for light to arrive for an image to be seen.

Originally Posted by davidm

LOLLER Because it happens by magic!

It's not magic David. It's efferent sight that makes all the difference in how and what we see.

Originally Posted by davidm

So, no signals go out, eh? Then what the hell do you mean by efferent seeing? You don't even know, do you?

No signals are required. Efferent sight is looking at the world through the eyes, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by davidm

It just works because of... it works by... it just sort of... she doesn't know. Magic!

No, there is a connection between light and sight. Is that what you mean by signal? You're confusing me with your terminology.

Originally Posted by davidm

So the space between objects is different if seeing is "efferent?" WTF? Does the babble just involuntarily come out of you, beyond your control? The distance from the earth to the sun is different if seeing is efferent rather than afferent? Rully? Clue us in! Tell us how far it is to the sun if seeing is efferent, and how far it is to the sun if seeing is afferent!

I've explained this already. It's not that distance is any closer in efferent vision, but if it's true that the object has to be in range, then that space always remains the same. The only requirements are that the object has to be large enough and bright enough. If it meets those requirements, then the light coming from that object is already present. This does not negate the fact that it takes 8.3 minutes for the Sun's photons to reach Earth.

Originally Posted by davidm

LOOOL - So if an object is big enough and bright enough then the light "of that object" is already there to see it with. But if the sun is turned on then for 8 minutes there is no light here, but we will see it anyway because... ermmm... the light only needs to be at the object, not at the eyes! Only not that either because then we cannot explain cameras and the time delay....

As I mentioned before, the range is not a great distance to the eye even though in actuality we know the object in the sky is a great distance away. That's why I said that the brain interprets the actual distance. If the light isn't here yet because it hasn't arrived, we couldn't see each other, but that doesn't mean we couldn't see an object in space that is reflecting light. I told you that because a camera's lens works like the eye, it focuses the light that is present already because it's within the same visual field.

Originally Posted by davidm

My God, you are the gift that keeps on giving, when it comes to utter twaddle.

Originally Posted by davidm

The concept of efferent vision is not twaddle just because it's new to you and you've grown up with the idea that afferent vision is a fact.

Originally Posted by davidm

It is so much twaddle that you, the only proponent of it, do not even have the slightest clue how it is supposed to work.

To have an accurate observation does not require one to know the exact mechanism, but it would definitely add to our understanding. By the same token, we can think we know the mechanism of how something works, but be mistaken.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My evidence is how the brain is able to project words (that contain values) onto real substance that have no corresponding accuracy. If sight was afferent, the brain could not do this.

That's simply not true. The psychological projection of values has absolutely nothing to do with the particular mechanism of vision. This phenomenon is perfectly explainable given the afferent model. That it occurs in a way that requires efferent vision is just another unsupported assertion from you and Lessans and doesn't support efferent vision at all.

And you still haven't answered any of my questions.

[LadyShea]

My evidence is how the brain is able to project words (that contain values) onto real substance that have no corresponding accuracy. If sight was afferent, the brain could not do this.

Sure the brain could do that. No reason at all to think the brain can't do that. The brain, after all, creates the images in the standard model of vision, so the brain creating those images with inaccurate values incorporated is perfectly logical. In fact, I even agree that conditioning might easily lead to such an occurrence.