A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So what is being refracted?

Light is being refracted, what else?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's a completely different idiotic claim to the one we are discussing.

It's actually relevant to what we are discussing.

[Vivisectus]

expertise

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is being refracted, what else?

But light does not come out of the eye, it comes in. Nor does it carry information, you say. So why does it matter that light gets refracted if "the brain looks out"? It is just a condition.

How does efferent vision work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nor was I saying that. What I am saying is that you cannot use it to make his ideas seem plausible.

It rather is what you said. You said "why cant people wait for future evidence to show up?"

No, the ideas about sight are clearly impossible. I have already pointed that out in the other post, and you failed to address any of the points in there.

The rest can only be tested by applying it to entire societies, and is completely unsupported.

This would mean that we should also assume that it is plausible that elves exist, that the world flies through space on the back of a giant turtle, and that heart-attacks are caused by witches. At least if we are to use your standards of evidence.

Also, they ignore the fact that this also means that directly opposing beliefs must be considered valid as they also have not been disproven.

That is sort of the point, which you seem to have missed. No-one has ever proven that diseases are not caused by evil spells. What they have done is found evidence that suggests very strongly that there are different causes, such as virusses.

It does not seem to have done him much good. Nor does it seem to have included any fact-checking, or perhaps getting even a little bit acquainted with the fields he was making broad sweeping statements about. Basic logic, philosophy 101, a simply biology textbook and perhaps an introduction to basic physics are all conspicuous by their absence from his reading matter.

It is opinion. He did not support it in any way. If not - why should be assume conscience works the way he said?

Actually I am calling you lazy. As the originator of the belief, I am merely calling him ignorant. Although he did have decades to acquire a basic high-school grade knowledge of physics and optics, which he seems to have neglected to do. He also seems to have not found the time to find any evidence. Or even to make a compelling case for his idea.

You know what? I changed my mind. I am calling him lazy after all. He was happy just making claims, and then pretending he did the work to check and support those claims. He did not do any of the actual work that is required, but wanted to claim the recognition anyway.

If it is merely my pride that is keeping me from accepting this, then you should be able to tell me that I am wrong and that there is evidence, or even just a compelling reason to believe it works that way. I should be irrational, and it should be easy to point this out.

But you never do. You say "You just don't believe it because you are a meanie!" and leave it at that.

Well, you are, really. You say there is no need for a rational approach: we should all just believe lessans, because he said so! And if we object, you say that this is not rational, because despite all the evidence pointing in the other direction, there could be something about the brain which we do not know yet which would make it NOT impossible for him to be right!

As I already pointed out - we don't know everything about the amazon jungle, so maybe elves live there! You cannot prove they don't, so by your logic that makes them plausible!

He did not just say things off the top of his head and call it a day Vivisectus. You seem to think that this is all he did. But that is not all he did. He made very perceptive observations. Just because he didn't start off with a hypothesis and test it empirically does not mean that his observations were wrong. They were not. You are going to need to accept that the two principles that lead to his discovery are spot on, even if you don't see it yet, otherwise you won't follow the rest. You really have no understanding of the two-sided equation. You will continue to argue with me because you resent that he did not use the scientific method. It's really unfortunate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But light does not come out of the eye, it comes in. Nor does it carry information, you say. So why does it matter that light gets refracted if "the brain looks out"? It is just a condition.

How does efferent vision work?

Light strikes the eye. We could not see if it didn't. But the images that we see do not get interpreted in the brain. Efferent vision means that the brain, looking through the eyes, as a window, is able to see the external world using light as a medium or condition.

[Vivisectus]

He did not just say things off the top of his head and call it a day Vivisectus

.

I do not see any reason to come to that conclusion. He sure as hell did not see any reason to provide any reason to assume he was correct, test, or even fact-check what he said.

You seem to think that this is all he did. But that is not all he did. He made very perceptive observations.

So you claim, but remain unable to support.

Just because he didn't start off with a hypothesis and test it empirically does not mean that his observations were wrong.

You are using "observations" wrong again. I know it sounds nice and important, but it just makes the both of you look ignorant. We could call what he had a theory I suppose, but it really isn't coherent enough for that. Idea is the best word I think.

Be that as it may - he thought things worked a certain way. I see no reason to assume he was right: not even a bad reason. All we have to go on is his say-so that conscience works that way.

They were not. You are going to need to accept that the two principles that lead to his discovery are spot on, even if you don't see it yet, otherwise you won't follow the rest.

Wow. Ok. Let me try to get this straight:

I am going to have to assume you are right, even if I have reasons to feel you are wrong, or else I will never get to assume you are right some more?

You really have no understanding of the two-sided equation. You will continue to argue with me because you resent that he did not use the scientific method. It's really unfortunate.

No, I will continue to argue with you because I find it amusing. You, in turn, will continue to argue with me because it yields the attention you crave.

I am glad you agree this book is unscientific. However, the author sees fit to make claims about science. How do you justify that?

[Vivisectus]

Light strikes the eye. We could not see if it didn't. But the images that we see do not get interpreted in the brain. Efferent vision means that the brain, looking through the eyes, as a window, is able to see the external world using light as a medium or condition.

That does not answer the question: why must light be refracted properly for us to see properly?

[thedoc]

Lest we forget why Peacegirl is here. Somewhere in the dim recesses of past entries she has stated that she is not here to be educated by us, but to educate us in this wonderful knowledge about Lessans' wonderful discoveries. Hence she tries to take on the role of a teacher, for which she is eminently unqualified, and tries to address everyone here like an uneducated child, for which we are eminently unqualified. Thus the whole exchange breaks down as she hasen't the faintest idea what Lessans was saying because Lessans hadn't the faintest idea what he was talking about. That plus the fact that the other posters on this forum have a much greater understanding of the book than is possible for peacegirl in her seriously limited state of mind.

Sad as Sad can be, as in her state she diserves our pity, but in her arrogance she earns our hostility

[Angakuk]

Simply put, teachers cannot teach what they do not know.

Also, teachers cannot teach what they do not understand.

The best such teachers can hope to do is point the student toward a source(s) of information and hope the student is able to learn from the source what the teacher has not managed to learn.

This is what peacegirl does. She doesn't understand the material that she is trying to teach and she is ignorant of the broader context in which this material must be considered and evaluated, so she invariably points us back to book hoping that we will learn from Lessans that which she has failed learn. The fundamental problem with this approach is that the source itself is meaningless crap.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Every single circumstance means that there should be no exceptions if the eyes are a sense organ.

Which is what makes your claim utterly and mind-bogglingly stupid. You are saying that if afferent vision is true, then we should always and without exception see planes before we hear them... even if we have poor vision, are looking in the wrong direction, or if the airplane is occluded by clouds.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there are exceptions, and they are very obvious to the astute observer. The plane is too small to be resolved indicates that the plane is out of visual range. Due to its small size, the image won't show up on our retinas. If we use a telescope, we can see it because it magnifies its size to where its within our field of view and therefore it does show up on our retinas.

Yes, this is the resolution explanation. It is the explanation provided by AFFERENT VISION and which works and makes sense for AFFERENT VISION only. It is an explanation that relies upon the dispersion of traveling light. It is NOT an explanation that makes any sense at all on the hypothesis of efferent vision. It is also something you clearly do not understand.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Use whatever term you want, the fact remains that light should be traveling over long distances to reach our eye in nano-seconds, but this doesn't occur.

Yes it does. You are making shit up again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the plane is too far away (out of our visual field) or the light the plane is reflecting is too dim from where we are, we won't see it because the conditions that would allow us to see it are not present.

Well, duh! Who's disagreeing with that? Obviously things that cannot be seen will not be seen. Your point?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it actually doesn't work perfectly under regular afferent vision.

Oh really? Do go on. Explain why the resolution/dispersion explanation does not work for afferent vision. Please also explain how it allegedly does work for efferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These are not invented facts.

Of course they are. You blatantly invented your claim that we typically can hear airplanes before we can see them. That was grade A invented ignorant bullshit.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, here is that question concerning conscience again which you have yet to answer with anything but weaseling evasion:

What support did Lessans provide for your claim that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification?


If you'd rather discuss efferent vision (despite previously insisting that you would not be returning to this topic), then here are some questions on that topic for you to answer:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need to answer these questions without contradicting yourself, otherwise real-time photography and efferent vision remains impossible:

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

5. How did the light already present at the camera get to be there, i.e. where did it come from?

6. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

7. Can light travel faster than light?

8. Is wavelength a property of light?

9. Can light travel without any wavelength?

10. Can wavelengths travel independently of light?

11. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

12. What does a reflection consist of?

13. What does light consist of?

14. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?

15. What happens to any light striking the surface of an object which does not get absorbed, after it strikes that object?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why does efferent vision still have no answers to the following simple questions?


When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]


1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

Show us all again how you never ignore or evade questions, Peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Hello all, in as much as it really seems that Peacegirl has me on ignore, or is really good at pretending, could some of you quote any of my posts that seem to have some usefull content? I wouldn't want Peacegirl to miss any of those Pearls of wisdom.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

expertise

Yes Vivisectus, expertise!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here is that question concerning conscience again which you have yet to answer with anything but weaseling evasion:

What support did Lessans provide for your claim that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification?


If you'd rather discuss efferent vision (despite previously insisting that you would not be returning to this topic), then here are some questions on that topic for you to answer:

Show us all again how you never ignore or evade questions, Peacegirl.

I did not evade these questions. I don't think they are useful. If an object is within the camera's field of view, and the camera is taking a snapshot of the actual object due to light's presence, that means that the photons that come first and second have absolutely nothing to do with this model of sight. You are getting confused due to the belief that the photons are traveling, striking the film, and a delayed image formed. That is not how I believe it works based on Lessans' observations.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes Vivisectus, expertise!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But light does not come out of the eye, it comes in. Nor does it carry information, you say. So why does it matter that light gets refracted if "the brain looks out"? It is just a condition.

How does efferent vision work?

It does not carry information to the brain; it allows information to be processed after it sees what is out there. That's why everyone's perceptions are different.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Do you think your silly emoticon does anything to change the truth of what is being said?

[Vivisectus]

It merely indicates how funny I think it is to refer to a man who did not even seem to have basic high-school grade knowledge about anything as having any kind of "expertise". Although you could call him an expert in Advanced Bumbling and Post-Graduate Buffoonery I suppose.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, too unreliable for his tastes VIVISECTUS? Can you not handle it? And please fix your quotes so that I don't have to clean up after you. Thank you very much.

Actually, it's very clear. No jumble unless you're trying to make it appear that way.

: an observation can be either a remark, or it can be something someone observed. The first can be just about anything: I can make the observation to you that I thought yesterdays meatloaf was particularly fine. The second one requires something to observe: they are always observations of physical things.

What's your point?

He made his observations based on seeing how we become conditioned by words

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is an impossibility. You can see behaviours, or other physical phenomena. You cannot directly observe conditioning, as it is a psychological phenomenon. You can observe behaviour and then raise the hypothesis that conditioning occurs. You would have to test that hypothesis before you go on, thought.

Well sorry, he didn't raise a hypothesis; he did not have to. He was basing his conclusions on observsations. He already knew from his observations which premises were spot on and which ones were faulty. I know you hate when I say this because it makes you wrong in your analysis because his findings did not involve the scientific method. You obviously feel the need to to defend this method, but it is incomplete. Face it Vivisectus and surrender. I know not only will you not do this, but you give Lessans one ounce of credit because it will destroy your worldview, and that is something people cannot do without going nuts. They would have no identity.

He saw how this conditioning occurs.

To do this you would quite literally need to be a mind-reader. It cannot be done. What you can do is observe behaviour, especially if in this case you observed a lot of developing infants, and then see if the data you have collected matches your hypothesis that this is what occurs.

Descriptors are projected onto people with certain facial structures.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So the two of you claim. I see no evidence to suggest it is true. Worse: I do not even see any reason to assume it is plausible. All I see is your claim that it is so.

No, don't say the two of us claim. This is his claim, got it, and there are reasons for it.

A child keeps hearing positive or negative inflections when that person is identified. This process begins at a very early age and it occurs over and over again, so by the time a child is 4 or 5 (or maybe even younger), he can see, with his very eyes, the difference between an "ugly" individual or a "pretty" individual. The truth is people ae not ugly or beautiful, just different, and these words which have hurt so many are going to become obsolete out of necessity. Why would anyone want to use words that not only are inaccurate symbols, but hurt so many of our youth because they don't feel they measure up? In the new world these words will never be used.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All of this is a repetition of the same claim. All you have done is repeated what it is you believe. I know perfectly well what it is you believe: I just pointed out that I cannot for the life of me spot any reason to believe it is true!

This is the problem with the book. At no point did he feel any need to fact-check, test, prove, or support his ideas. He can either have been ignorant of the fact that in any even remotely scientific work, this is an absolute requirement, or he can have simply felt that there was no need for it, and that his self-proclaimed authority as a genius should be enough.

Vivisectus, give me a break, okay? You keep saying this over and over and over again. I will concede if he is wrong, believe me I will. But you have not investigated this knowledge whatsoever. You are contesting it prematurely. What am I supposed to do?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Tell me - if you were asked to change the entire organisation of your countries society, would you be happy to do so on the say-so of someone,

OF COURSE NOT.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

just because that person assures you he is a grade-a brainbox and has spent a lot of time on his system? That would just be silly, right? The guy could be dead wrong.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet that is exactly what your father expected the US to do. He even tried to sue the president to get this done. Despite the fact that the key part of this book - the assumption that conscience works the way he says it does - is completely unsupported.

It is not true that he expected people to just say he's right. That is the opposite of what he did. He wrote an entire book to show people why their actions are preventing the very thing they have been praying for. If they don't give him a chance to prove it, what on earth can I do except to move on to others who will, at the very least, give him a sincere audience, which this thread has not done regardless of how many hits it has gotten.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not carry information to the brain; it allows information to be processed after it sees what is out there. That's why everyone's perceptions are different.

If it does not carry information, why bother refracting it? as long as it reaches the eyes, the job is done. What need is there for lenses at all?

By the way your cleverly constructed sentence makes it seem like you are saying that light sees what is out there and then allows the "information" to be processes... whatever that means!

Nor does it give any reason why everyone's perceptions are different.

It is all pretty much the same to you, isn't it Peacegirl?

[Vivisectus]

: an observation can be either a remark, or it can be something someone observed. The first can be just about anything: I can make the observation to you that I thought yesterdays meatloaf was particularly fine. The second one requires something to observe: they are always observations of physical things.

What's your point?[/QUOTE]

*sigh* you mix them up, obviously.

Well sorry, he didn't raise this hypothesis. He didn't have to. It was not hypothetical. He already knew from his observations which premises were spot on. I know you hate when I say this, but it's true Vivisectus. So face it and surrender that you are not right.

:lolfruit:

There you go again with your "observations", confusing yourself hopelessly. As was already pointed out, you cannot observe conditioning. All you can observe is behaviour. You would have to be a mind-reader to actually observe conditioning.

You use "observations" as a sort of magic word, to denote an almost mystical divining of absolute truth that requires no evidence, no testing, and not even a reasonable explanation.

That is for mystics and other religious folks. It has nothing to do with reason.

And you kind of prove this when you retort: "You are just going to have to surrender because it is just true"... without even attempting to give it any sort of plausibility. I have to take it on faith that your father was right about this, without evidence.

To do this you would quite literally need to be a mind-reader. It cannot be done. What you can do is observe behaviour, especially if in this case you observed a lot of developing infants, and then see if the data you have collected matches your hypothesis that this is what occurs.

No, don't say the two of us claim. This is his claim, got it, and there are reasons for it.

Have it as you want: it remains completely unsupported.

Vivisectus, give me a break, okay? You keep saying this over and over and over again. I will concede if he is wrong, believe me I will. But you have not investigated this knowledge whatsoever. You are contesting it prematurely. What am I supposed to do?

If there is no reason to believe something is true, then it should be rejected. This entire book hinges on conscience working the way the book says it does, but there is not even a case for it, let alone any evidence.

He said the book goes in logical steps, each step as undeniable as 1+1 = 2. But it doesn't. There is only his say-so that conscience works that way. Because of this, anything after chapter 2 is complete speculation.

[quote][quote="Vivisectus"]Tell me - if you were asked to change the entire organisation of your countries society, would you be happy to do so on the say-so of someone,

OF COURSE NOT.

Then it would be kind of important to include something more than just someone's say-so, don't you think? The book does not have it: it fails to even make a case for conscience working the way he said.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Especially if he has already shown his ignorance by talking about molecules of light and the nerves in the eye not being afferent.

It is not true that he expected people to just say he's right. That is the opposite of what he did. He wrote an entire book to show people why their actions are preventing the very thing they have been praying for. If they don't give him a chance to prove it, what on earth can I do except to move on to others who will, at the very least, give him a sincere audience, which this thread has not done regardless of how many hits it has gotten.

It is true, because he forgot to include a reason to assume his idea would work. That is not anyone else's fault, that is his own oversight. And without any reason to assume it would work, all there is is his say-so.

You can blame it on bias as much as ever you want, but that does not change the fact that you do not know why we should assume it works that way either. And if anything, you are biased in his favour, at the very least you are certainly not biased against him.

By the same token, you do not have any idea how efferent sight is supposed to work either, other than "the brain sort of looks out somehow".

The problem is not people not giving him a fair chance. It is the fact that there are enormous gaping holes in the book. Nothing is proven, checked, or even made plausible. It is all just claimed.

Look, if you really feel I am wrong, then point out the evidence. Show me why I should think conscience works the way it is described in the book. Describe the mechanism of efferent sight. The fact is you just do not know any of these things, but you just believe him despite all this.

You have already admitted that you are not aware of why we should believe conscience works as described in the book, and that you do not know how efferent sight supposedly works. I guess that is the fault of biased meanies too?

All you are doing is sticking your head in the sand. Either say "This is my belief!" and have it as a religion, or show me a rational reason to believe he was correct.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Medical imaging means he can read cat scans. He doesn't have to determine how the brain works in relation to the eyes. No opthamologist knows this, so why would he be expected to. Anyway, this is out of his realm of expertise. This was grandfather's expertise, not his.

If your son is a radiologist (and he should be, if he's reading cat scans), he's a licensed physician. That means he went through 4 years of medical school. In medical school, he took anatomy classes as well as at least one rotation in neurology. If he's a licensed radiologist, he also should be familiar with MRI, x-rays and other forms of medical imaging; and he is probably well aware of imaging techniques that could determine the direction of signals of neurons to the brain.

Most doctors were trained as scientists, and even those that aren't, are trained in how to evaluate scientific studies.

Your son is well qualified to evaluate Lessans' ideas on vision.

That he hasn't implies that he's a loving son who knows exactly what the truth will do to his mother.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Scientists don't know everything, but they've pretty conclusively shown that Lessans is wrong.

Seriously, when are you going to find that one scientist that agrees with this statement?

Yes.