A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

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.

You haven't answered this question yet, Peacegirl. If efferent vision is to even be possible, it must have an answer. Yet whichever answer you give will lead to further insuperable difficulties. I think you know this, and that's why you are cowardly refusing to address it.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, since you can't learn anything else, can you at least try to learn how to use quote tags? In your most recent twaddle post, you've attributes quotes from me to Vivisectus and vice versa.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't answered this question yet, Peacegirl. If efferent vision is to even be possible, it must have an answer. Yet whichever answer you give will lead to further insuperable difficulties. I think you know this, and that's why you are cowardly refusing to address it.

Of course, that's precisely it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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 ...

There are many things about the brain that we don't understand. We each have a personality, but we can't identify where it is in the brain's structure. We can identify a certain area that controls emotions, but that's about it. We also cannot identify any structure in the brain that we can call conscience. Does that mean it doesn't exist? No.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course, that's precisely it.

I just answered that. No, it didn't travel. It's there because the field of view is condensed to a narrow range. It is that range that allows light to be present in order to take a photograph. We never see a discrepancy in what exists in real time, and the photograph taken.

[LadyShea]

There are many things about the brain that we don't understand. We each have a personality, but we can't identify where it is in the brain's structure. We can identify a certain area that controls emotions, but that's about it. We also cannot identify any structure in the brain that we can call conscience. Does that mean it doesn't exist? No.

Vision is not an emergent property of the brain like consciousness is.

We can see the visual cortex and eyes, take them apart, look at them under microscopes, probe and stimulate them artificially, watch signals being relayed along the optic nerve.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Again, whether you call them descriptions or observations or anything else is irrelevant. The fact remains that he drew conclusions on the basis of them, and that means what he wrote qualifies as an argument. So I ask you again: Are the things I listed not presuppositions because his conclusions still follow even if these things are false? Or are they not presuppositions because he argued for and supported them (with further 'observations' or whatever)?

My position is that his conclusions do not follow unless these things are true, and that he did not anywhere provide reasons for thinking that they are true.

What part of this do you disagree with?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

It's still true that copypasting the whole chapter doesn't answer my question. If you can't show me either that his arguments work without the truth of these presuppositions, or that he somewhere argued for and supported them, then his whole first non-discovery rests upon these presuppositions which no-one has any reason to accept. His principles will never get put into practice until you can give people some reason to think that they will work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I'm not being nasty. I'm just pointing out the facts. Your behaviour here and elsewhere demonstrates beyond any possible doubt that you are severly mentally incapacitated. If you don't believe me, then get someone you trust, like a family member or a mental health professional, to read through these threads and see what they think. I don't want you to run away. I would much rather see you start to think rationally and start being honest with yourself regarding your faith-based attachment to this material. And as I said:

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 until you address this...

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.

...your claim that his work is not based upon any presuppositions remains refuted.

[Angakuk]

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.

Why not?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are many things about the brain that we don't understand. We each have a personality, but we can't identify where it is in the brain's structure. We can identify a certain area that controls emotions, but that's about it. We also cannot identify any structure in the brain that we can call conscience. Does that mean it doesn't exist? No.

It is true that there are many things about the brain that we don't understand (fewer today than when Lessans wrote his books). There are also many things that we do understand. One of the things that is well understood is how the eyes work. That you refuse to acknowledge this does not make it untrue and it will not make the knowledge go away.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just answered that.

Where? This is the first direct answer I've had from you. And you'd been deliberately avoiding it for some time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it didn't travel. It's there because the field of view is condensed to a narrow range. It is that range that allows light to be present in order to take a photograph. We never see a discrepancy in what exists in real time, and the photograph taken.

Well that obviously doesn't work. Assuming the photograph to have been taken during daylight, I would've thought the light at the camera came from the sun. But that can't be true given your present answer. If the light at the camera didn't previously travel at all to get there, then you have only two options. Either the photons were always there, just floating around in a cloud at the camera, or they magically and mysteriously materialized there, either at the time the photograph is taken or at some time before this.

Which of these two batshit insane responses are you going to support? Or can you offer some third possibility? Or perhaps you need to provide a less retarded answer to the original question?

Light is always in motion, so obviously any light at the camera previously travelled to get there. The question is where it came from, and whether or not it previously travelled from the object being photographed.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are many things about the brain that we don't understand. We each have a personality, but we can't identify where it is in the brain's structure. We can identify a certain area that controls emotions, but that's about it. We also cannot identify any structure in the brain that we can call conscience. Does that mean it doesn't exist? No.

Lessans claimed vision was efferent. The eye is structurally afferent. There is no efferent seeing. Lessans was wrong -- again!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

In fact the brain does do this it is a well known psychological occurance that the brain is conditioned to assign values to certain images, and these values would be represented by words. This is in fact how language is learned that words are taught in conjunction with the images or objects they refer to. Other words that do not represent things are learned by hearing them and mimicking their use. So, many words are learned by associating them with images of things, all this is well understood in conjunction with afferent vision because it happens in the brain and is not really part of vision, vision only supplies the images while hearing supplies the words and later the words are learned through reading, all the conditioning is internal to the brain.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My evidence is how the brain is able to project words onto real substance .

Then your evidence is contradicting what you have said before, when you stated that nothing is projected from the eyes (I believe you said "nothing shoots out from the eyes", and "there are no outgoing signals" but close enough).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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..

How the brain is able to look out through the eyes, as a window, doesn't necessarily have to be identified in a localized area of the brain. Efferent means from the brain out, but the way David put it, it seems like magic. That's only because the mechanism hasn't been clearly established, but neither has the mechanism behind conscience. That doesn't mean we can't observe how it works.

[LadyShea]

So what is the mechanism? None of the structures in the eye or optic nerve are efferent.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How the brain is able to look out through the eyes, as a window, doesn't necessarily have to be identified in a localized area of the brain. Efferent means from the brain out, but the way David put it, it seems like magic. That's only because the mechanism hasn't been clearly established, but neither has the mechanism behind conscience. That doesn't mean we can't observe how it works.

You mean like the way we observe it to work with the moons of Jupiter, which shows that we see light afferently in delayed time? That way?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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?

What I meant by "the space is not the same" is that we don't have to wait (there is no delay) for light to reach us in order to see the object. The distance is the same in both models. The difference is that if the eyes are a sense organ light is bringing the object to us through space and time to be interpreted, whereas in efferent vision we see the object instantly not because light is bringing the information to us, but because the object can be resolved in our visual field.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's only because the mechanism hasn't been clearly established, but neither has the mechanism behind conscience. That doesn't mean we can't observe how it works.

Actually we can't observe how conscience works, we can only observe actions and reactions to situations and infer what is happening in a persons mind. Since, as you have said, conscience is not a physical thing, does not have a specific location yet identified in the brain, there is nothing to observe, only the effects from which we drew inferences as to what is happening in the mind. The actions are the effects of conscience, which we observe, but we cannot observe how conscience itself works.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just answered that. No, it didn't travel.

Hey, Peacegirl. If the light at the camera (at the time of the photograph) never previously travelled, then how did it get there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I never said I knew the exact mechanism David.

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

It could be something that's happening consistently that is causing the delay other than the speed of light.

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.

Originally Posted by davidm

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I meant by "the space is not the same" is that we don't have to wait (there is no delay) for light to reach us in order to see the object. The distance is the same in both models. The difference is that if the eyes are a sense organ light is bringing the object to us through space and time to be interpreted, whereas in efferent vision we see the object instantly not because light is bringing the information to us, but because the object can be resolved in our visual field.

You said the space is different, does that mean the distance is different or does efferent vision warp space so that the visual range to the object is closer? And how close does it get, can that be translated into an equivalent distance?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It could be something that's happening consistently that is causing the delay other than the speed of light.

In other words, you have absolutely no idea, but you have faith that there must be some other explanation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

Just because the eyes are made up of afferent fibers doesn't mean that the brain cannot use the eye structure to look out. It's not the eye looking out; it's the brain looking out, and we don't know enough about the brain to play God and to say with absolute conviction that this is how it works. Scientists admit that we're in the beginning stages of understanding the brain, so there is a lot of room for error. Moreover, efferent fibers only relate to muscle movement, so it probably isn't the mechanism behind this phenomenon.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because the eyes are made up of afferent fibers doesn't mean that the brain cannot use the eye structure to look out. It's not the eye looking out; it's the brain looking out...

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.

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

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

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.

[LadyShea]

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.

Your support for this is?