A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, and what specifically are they? And why should anyone agree that they are true?

Of course you do. Because you have faith.

As everyone but you clearly does and will continue to do.

Of course it is a futile effort. You cannot give people any reason to think that his 'observations' are more than mere assertions. And rational people will not accept that claim without being given reasons for doing so.

No-one is ever going to share your faith.

Sorry, but it's not faith based. If you can't see that man's will is not free, that's not Lessans' fault. If you can't see how conscience works under different environmental conditions, that's not Lessans' fault. If you can't see that one can anticipate an action that would cause remorse, even if others don't believe he is blameworthy, that's not Lessans' fault.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

It is amazing just how oblivious to the damage she is creating to her very own cause. Certainly any body googling Lessans are gonna find the threads she has sprinkled all over the web and immediately conclude that peacegirl is a nutcase and Lessans was a moronic crank.

What peacegirl doesn't realize is that if she keeps this up she could very well turn the name Lessans into a synonym for moron.

And when his knowledge turns out to be true, what will people think of you and your disgusting name calling even if they don't know your real name. I guarantee you would not talk this way if you weren't anonymous. What a coward!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think it's important to define what is true vision. If someone is being helped because he can see these impulses that are sent from the tongue to the visual cortex and consequently avoid obstacles in his path, then this would be considered a limited type of vision. But this does not prove that the eyes are afferent.

If the eyes are not afferent, and vision is an efferent process, how do you suppose the visual cortex can suddenly start processing incoming afferent impulses?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, but it's not faith based.

It certainly is for you. Why are you not answering any of my questions?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here are the questions which I need you to answer:

With respect to these points...

...do you agree or disagree that:

(i) These things have to be true for the conclusions of his book to be true?

(ii) He did not argue for or support these things anywhere within his book?


And:


How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about? I specifically said people's ideas of beauty can and do change over time. I know this because it happened to me

I thought my husband was ugly and dorky when I first met him, but at some point and I started to see him as handsome, then grew a strong attraction to him (which remains 20 years later).

And he may find himself attracted to someone with a hook nose and beady eyes anyway. People with hook noses and beady eyes are not all single and shunned, some of them have spouses who find them attractive and everything.

Some people find overweight people, and even obesity, especially attractive and some find the current Hollywood standard of very thin women very unattractive.

Where's the conditioning coming in?

You can fall in love with somebody and their whole appearance can look different because of the affection that is associated with that person, but according to general standards there are certain features that are considered handsome, and others considered homely, and the majority of people are conditioned to seeing those features as more attractive. Some people do find overweight people attractive. Lessans even mentioned that in the book, but the majority of people would rather be with a thinner person because they believe they are prettier. Some people like heavy people because they feel superior around them, since they can't get a thinner person. There are all kinds of psychological reasons that may factor into one's choice for a mate, but that doesn't change the fact that conditioning does take place, and it begins in early childhood. You can't tell me that society's attitude toward body image is healthy. I feel sorry for the youth of today.

[Spacemonkey]

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

[davidm]

She is incapable of answering the question, just like she is incapable of answering the question about the moons of Jupiter or addressing the point about the Hubble telescope. To answer honestly, is to admit that Lessans was wrong; obviously all these and many other examples cited through the hundreds of pages of this freak show prove that Lessans was wrong. This she CANNOT ever admit. Therefore she will lie. She is a liar for Lessans.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that the light that a camera uses is the same light that is present at the eye. It works the same way. That does not mean that light doesn't travel at a finite rate of speed. I know this sounds contradictory but not if you understand the efferent model.

What model? Neither you or Lessans have ever presented a model of how efferent vision works. You, yourself, have admitted that you don't know how it works. If you have a model for how efferent vision works trot it out and let us take a look at it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It certainly is for you. Why are you not answering any of my questions?

Look, if you're so sure Lessans is wrong, why are you trying to get me to answer your questions? If you don't want me to cut and paste, then I have no desire to answer your questions because the answers are in the chapter. I'm not going to be interrogated over and over again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What model. Neither you or Lessans have ever presented a model of how efferent vision works. You, yourself, have admitted that you don't know how it works. If you have a model for how efferent vision works trot it out and let us take a look at it.

You are mixing up the mechanism, with a model. He gave his reasoning which were indirect. You can all take it or leave it. I'm not forcing anyone to agree with it if you don't.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to be interrogated over and over again.

Yes, you are. As long as you keep posting here people will keep questioning your claims.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look, if you're so sure Lessans is wrong, why are you trying to get me to answer your questions? If you don't want me to cut and paste, then I have no desire to answer your questions because the answers are in the chapter. I'm not going to be interrogated over and over again.

Look at her squirm!

Really, liar? The question, "How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?" is answered by Lessans in the book? Why don't you copy and paste the answer then, hmm?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

How did the particular light which is present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken get to be there?

I told you if the object is within the field of view, the light is already present at the film. What is so difficult?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are mixing up the mechanism, with a model. He gave his reasoning which were indirect. You can all take it or leave it. I'm not forcing anyone to agree with it if you don't.

A model of efferent vision would necessarily include a description of the mechanism by which operates. Otherwise it is not a model. If you have a model let us see it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yes, you are. As long as you keep posting here people will keep questioning your claims.

Didn't you ask me to go ahead and cut and paste? I don't want to do this if no one wants me to because then I'll be called a liar.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you if the object is within the field of view, the light is already present at the film. What is so difficult?

If the light is already at the film, explain how it came to be there. What is so difficult?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

A model of efferent vision would necessarily include a description of the mechanism by which operates. Otherwise it is not a model. If you have a model let us see it.

Then it's not a model. It's an explanation as to why we see in real time based on observation and reasoning. I really don't care what it's called.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Didn't you ask me to go ahead and cut and paste? I don't want to do this if no one wants me to because then I'll be called a liar.

No, I did not ask you to go ahead and cut and paste. I told you that you didn't need anyone's permission to cut and paste. As for being called a liar, since you have already been called one, what do you have to lose?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then it's not a model. It's an explanation as to why we see in real time based on observation and reasoning. I really don't care what it's called.

If there is no model you ought to quit claiming that there is one. Someone might call you a liar.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you if the object is within the field of view, the light is already present at the film. What is so difficult?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If the light is already at the film, explain how it came to be there. What is so difficult?

It traveled to get there, but if you are able to see the object, the light is already present at the film. Trying to understand light this way is never going to explain how the brain works. It can make no logical sense to you because of the idea that light takes time to get to a destination so therefore there has to be a delay, but optics isn't even the field that Lessans uncovered his discovery on the eyes. That's why no one came up with his first discovery. They kept coming from the same position of "how can we not blame others for hurting us" and they couldn't get beyond the implications.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If there is no model you ought to quit claiming that there is one. Someone might call you a liar.

So what should I call it? His understanding of vision? Is that okay?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, I did not ask you to go ahead and cut and paste. I told you that you didn't need anyone's permission to cut and paste. As for being called a liar, since you have already been called one, what do you have to lose?

True, except for being called a liar one more time.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It traveled to get there, but if you are able to see the object, the light is already present at the film.

Traveled from where?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look, if you're so sure Lessans is wrong, why are you trying to get me to answer your questions?

So that you can see it too. Why do you refuse to answer perfectly simple and reasonable questions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't want me to cut and paste, then I have no desire to answer your questions because the answers are in the chapter. I'm not going to be interrogated over and over again.

I'm not presently asking you to show me anything from his chapter. I'm simply asking you if you agree or disagree with the two clauses (i) and (ii) above, and to tell me how the light at the camera got there.

These are very simple and straightforward questions, and you are being intellectually dishonest by not answering them.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what should I call it? His understanding of vision? Is that okay?

What to call it is your problem. Just don't call it a model if there is no model. Also, don't call it a theory or even an hypothesis, because it qualifies as neither.