A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Look, this is going nowhere... again. Let's just accept that we do not currently know how the Lessanese framework and traditional physics can be reconciled. That is not the end of the world: quantum mechanics is in the same position, and it seems to be doing fine.

Really Peacegirl, you should know better by now. Why not focus on more constructive discussions in stead of beating about the dead horse?

I have already shown two perfectly good examples of current events and natural experiments that we would expect to see if the book is correct. Surely if we collect more of these, we can start to actually make the case in favor of the method for improving the world that is at the core of the book, in stead of tilting at these run-of-the-mill objections.

Every time I try to propose a more constructive discussion you ruin it for everyone by responding to the Grand Inquisitors of science. Time to put all that to one side: if sight is not efferent, and if it is not instant, then I am sure science will come up with some 100% foolproof evidence that it is so one of these days. In the meantime it really is neither here nor elsewhere.

This is just a taste of what I've been through Vivisectus. I hope you can withstand the onslaught and don't retreat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It has been pointed out many times before that the human retina contains zero efferent nerve endings from the brain. That, alone, should give peacegirl pause.

Couple that with the fact that there's a considerable amount of opaque tissue between the brain and the eyes (including bone), and we're left with the fact that the only possible explanation for how the brain can "look out through the eyes" is -- "it's magic."

Maybe I wasn't clear. Lessans explained what he believed was occurring. It is not the brain looking through the eyes as much as the other senses giving the brain the desire to focus the eyes to see what's out there. If you can't see the difference, this just shows me that you are not willing to understand what he was saying, for whatever reason.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it did, but not by afferent vision.

It doesn't matter.

Do you understand what I said? All that matters is the timing.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I wasn't clear. Lessans explained what he believed was occurring. It is not the brain looking through the eyes as much as the other senses giving the brain the desire to focus the eyes to see what's out there. If you can't see the difference, this just shows me that you are not willing to understand what he was saying, for whatever reason.

He literally wrote that there are no afferent nerve endings in the eye, and that's absolutely, spectacularly wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

It doesn't matter.

Do you understand what I said? All that matters is the timing.

Of course it matters. Time is not involved so how can it not matter?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

He literally wrote that there are no afferent nerve endings in the eye, and that's absolutely, spectacularly wrong.

You didn't read the book But. You are just copying what people are saying. And you call this good scientific investigation? If he did say something you disagree with, at least try to put it in context. That's the least you could do. Could it be you have been too quick to condemn Lessans before you even understood what he was trying to say?

p. 114 It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of
speed, but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound as
you will soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste,
touch, smell, sight, and hearing is because these describe individual
differences that exist, but when we say that these five are senses
we are assuming the eyes function like the other four — which they
do not. When you learn what this single misconception has done to
the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So without
further delay, I shall prove something never before understood by
man, but before I open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five
Senses’ to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely
necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now
tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we
have literally accepted come to us in the form of words that do not
accurately symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more
difficult since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is?
In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that no object is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging
on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes,
touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve
endings are being struck by something external.

“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract
depending on the intensity?”

That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition
of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a
condition of hearing. If there was no light we could not see, and if
there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not
hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums
whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of
light to impinge on our optic nerve. Did you ever wonder why the eyes
of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what exists around
him, although the other four senses are in full working order?

“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not
yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”

And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is
not the truth. In fact, if a newborn infant was placed in a soundproof
room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is
a prerequisite of sight — even though his eyes were wide open — he
could never have the desire to see. Furthermore, and quite revealing,
if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of
intravenous glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike
the other four organs of sense, this baby, child, young and middle aged
person would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing
in that room no matter how much light was present or how colorful
they might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been
removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that
travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent
nerve ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds,
tastes, touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it matters. Time is not involved so how can it not matter?

What do you mean, time is not involved? That's a nonsensical statement.

If the Sun is turned on at noon, we notice it immediately in your version.

That's 8 minutes too early for relativity. That's the contradiction.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You didn't read the book But. You are just mimicking what people are saying. And you call this good scientific investigation? I don't think so. If he did say something you disagree with, at least try to put it in context. That's the least you should do. Could it be you are too quick to condemn before you understand what the author is trying to explain?

p. 116 He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent
nerve ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds,
tastes, touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation.

Oh yes, I read this several times before. He's wrong. Objectively, demonstrably wrong. There are afferent nerve endings in the eye, just as there are in the ear.

I know that you're trying to find some interpretation of that passage that's correct, but there is none. He's just wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

What do you mean, time is not involved? That's a nonsensical statement.

If the Sun is turned on at noon, we notice it immediately in your version.

That's 8 minutes too early for relativity. That's the contradiction.

There is no contradiction if you understand what he is saying.

p. 117 Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted
that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my
friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could
sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the
earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”

Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this,
or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this
truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on
the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope.

But why would they need a telescope? They reasoned that since it
takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach us when 15,000
feet away than when 5000; and since it takes longer for light to
reach us the farther it is away when starting its journey, light and
sound must function alike in other respects — which is false — although
it is true that the farther away we are from the source of sound the fainter
it becomes, as light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away.
If the sound from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will
tell us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being
reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very
simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane
simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible
to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We
can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a
microscope.

The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough
light present and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to
why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger
— is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it
would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of
Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone
looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because the
images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light,
therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant
stars.

To paraphrase this another way; if you could sit upon the star
Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very
moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person
sitting right next to me would — which brings us to another very
interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me
because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been
turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we
would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very moment —
although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes
afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star,
the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with
which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light
diminishes before it gets to us.

Upon hearing this explanation
someone asked, “If we don’t need light around us to see the stars
would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at 12 noon?”
Once the light is here it remains here because the photons of light
emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the
earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness,
this only means the photons of light are on the other side. When our
rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not mean that
it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us because these
photons are already present. If the sun were to explode while we were
looking at it we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes
later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not
because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the
last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large
enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present.
This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were considered
a sense organ, like the ears.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Oh yes, I read this several times before. He's wrong. Objectively, demonstrably wrong. There are afferent nerve endings in the eye, just as there are in the ear.

I know that you're trying to find some interpretation of that passage that's correct, but there is none. He's just wrong.

He didn't say "no afferent nerve ending". He said no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say "no afferent nerve ending". He said no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ.

Dissimilar how? And how did he know if they were similar or not? This is a still a claim regarding anatomy, which he knew nothing about, so how is it not a baseless assertion with or without the weasel words?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's that supposed to mean?

Originally Posted by GdB

See Lone Ranger's post here. There are no efferent nerves in the retina of the eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't forget to answer you. It's right there in black and white.

Originally Posted by GdB

Where? I find no description of the mechanism of efferent vision anywhere.

I have explained it many times using different analogies.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is:

• Relativity theory says that instantaneous vision is impossible.
• You say instantaneous vision is possible.

And you do not see a contradiction?

Instantaneous vision is impossible if the image (or the pattern of light) travels to the eye, which takes time. But he is not suggesting this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I say a big fat phooey. You have failed to understand the reasoning that gave rise to this claim, but you continue to dismiss it without a second thought. Great scientific inquiry, let me tell you.

Originally Posted by GdB

You say that a dog does not have efferent vision, because it does not recognise his master from a picture. A dog has eyes which optical principles are the same as human eyes, but dogs have no efferent vision. A simple pinhole camera shows an image instantaneously, but a dog, which has no efferent vision, must wait till the light has reached his eye.

Please explain.

There is no way you can prove this. Show me where a dog has to wait 8 minutes to see an image from a pinhole camera and a human doesn't.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the sun were to explode while we were
looking at it we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes
later.

peacegirl, I'm going to explain the problem with this according to relativity. Please read it carefully.

In relativity, there is no 'instant' that is the same for everyone. Whether or not two things happen 'at the same time' is a matter of perspective based on relative velocities. This is called relativity of simultaneity.

In your example, if one person really did see the Sun explode the instant it happened, another person (travelling with a different velocity relative to the Sun) would see the Sun explode after it happened. And another person with a different velocity would see the Sun explode before it happened! All of them are 'correct'; there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer. It's a matter of perspective, not fact. It is relative to the observer, hence why the theory has its name.

This is why instantaneous vision is problematic in relativity.

Do you understand why this is a problem?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I wasn't clear. Lessans explained what he believed was occurring. It is not the brain looking through the eyes as much as the other senses giving the brain the desire to focus the eyes to see what's out there. If you can't see the difference, this just shows me that you are not willing to understand what he was saying, for whatever reason.

Lessans used the phrase that the brain looks out through the eyes as windows. Now you say that's not what he said or meant?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, there are nerve conductors that connect the optic nerve to the brain. It still doesn't prove what you think it does, and all of the dissecting doesn't prove what you think it does.

Originally Posted by GdB

Why not? If there only afferent nerves found and no efferent, why would that not be conclusive proof? Without efferent nerves at the retina, how can efferent vision exist? What would the function of 'afferent light' be in efferent vision?

Because the eyes aren't using afferent nerves to see? They are using the cones and rods to see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why observation is more important in this case, but you're all dismissing it without careful analaysis.

Originally Posted by GdB

It is time for you to do a careful analysis. And why doesn't a careful observation of the structures and functionings of the eye count?

A careful observation of the structure of the eye is important, but it doesn't put all of the pieces of the puzzle together.

[LadyShea]

Because the eyes aren't using afferent nerves to see? They are using the cones and rods to see

.


Cones and rods are photoreceptors, which are afferent sensory neurons.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans used the phrase that "the brain looks out through the eyes as windows". Now you say that's not what he said or meant?

The brain, responding to the other senses, causes a desire of the baby to see which then begins to focus the eyes. Read this again. Maybe it will sink in.

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient
accumulation of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and
smell — these are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the
child can look through them at what exists around him. He then
desires to see the source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as
binoculars.

The eyes are the windows of the brain through which
experience is gained not by what comes in on the waves of light as
a result of striking the optic nerve, but by what is looked at in
relation to the afferent experience of the senses. What is seen
through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that
room a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this
impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The
same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an
afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes
because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ. The
brain records various sounds, tastes, touches and smells in relation
to the objects from which these experiences are derived, and then
looks through the eyes to see these things that have become
familiar as a result of the relation. This desire is an electric current
which turns on or focuses the eyes to see that which exists —
completely independent of man’s perception — in the external
world.

He doesn’t see these objects because they strike the optic
nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But in order
to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes aware
that something will soon follow something else which then arouses
attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses
when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact
with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to
calling a potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called
a sense organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an
inaccurate observation that was never corrected.”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Cones and rods are photoreceptors, which are afferent sensory neurons.

He didn't say there were no afferent photoreceptors. He said that we don't see as a result of interpreting the light.

[LadyShea]

He said there were no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye. He said nothing makes contact with afferent nerves in the eye. He said the eyes are windows for the brain. We're these statements meant to be taken literally?

You said that afferent nerves aren't used to see but rods and cones are used to see. That indicates you do not believe rods and cones to be afferent photoreceptor.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say "no afferent nerve ending". He said no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ.

The point is that there are similar afferent nerve endings in the retina of the eye. All afferent nerves are similar but each sense organ has afferent nerves that respond to different stimuli, sounds, touch, taste, smells and light. All afferent nerves are similar but respond to the different stimuli and send signals to the brain where the brain interprets them in each different sense. The retina is composed of afferent nerves that are similar to the afferent nerves in the other senses, but respond to light as opposed to the other stimuli.

BTW, whether a dog can recognize it's master in a photo would be just as true for efferent vision or afferent vision, in either case the brain is receiving the image. The only real question is whether the brain of a dog can recognize the image as it's master in a photo, and that would be true, or not, in either efferent or afferent vision.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the eyes aren't using afferent nerves to see? They are using the cones and rods to see.

The lack of understanding of vision by Peacegirl is just amazing, Lessans states, and Peacegirl parrots, that there are no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye. But science states that the retina is composed of afferent nerve endings, and all afferent nerve endings are similar, they just respond to different stimuli. Then she states that the eye uses rods and cones to see, but the afferent nerves in the eye are not used to see, after she has claimed that there are no afferent nerves in the eye. She has also claimed that the brain is looking out through the eyes to see the object, and the eyes are really not part of seeing, except as passive windows for the brain, so it is the brain that is doing the seeing, not the eyes. I really can't wait to read what she claims next.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, I'm going to explain the problem with this according to relativity. Please read it carefully.

In relativity, there is no 'instant' that is the same for everyone. Whether or not two things happen 'at the same time' is a matter of perspective based on relative velocities. This is called relativity of simultaneity.

In your example, if one person really did see the Sun explode the instant it happened, another person (travelling with a different velocity relative to the Sun) would see the Sun explode after it happened. And another person with a different velocity would see the Sun explode before it happened! All of them are 'correct'; there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer. It's a matter of perspective, not fact. It is relative to the observer, hence why the theory has its name.

This is why instantaneous vision is problematic in relativity.

Do you understand why this is a problem?

How can a person see the Sun explode before it happens on any timeline? I don't want to argue with you about Einstein's theories. You are presupposing that time itself slows down or speeds up, and therefore we are seeing events at different time intervals. All I can do is offer you Lessans' observations. If he is right, and it conflicts with present day theories, does that mean we throw out Lessans' observations, or do we rethink the present day theories? I am quoting Louis Savain below. Please don't tell me that I am quoting crackpots so you can ignore his comments. Just because he has a different take on what is occurring doesn't make him a crackpot, which is a cop-out. After all, you believe my father was a crackpot too, and you're wrong.

Time is the Abstract Inverse of Change

Since a time axis does not exist, there is only one way to look at time. It is an abstract parameter derived from change. When we use a clock, we may fool ourselves into thinking that we are measuring something physical that we call time, but what we are doing is detecting change. The accepted convention is that the greater the magnitude of the change, the shorter the time interval. Thus time is the abstract inverse of change. This inverse proportionality is the reason that 't' is the denominator in the formula for velocity. However, some prefer to call time 'change' and that is fine with me. As such, it can be used as an evolution parameter with which to compare the magnitude of the change occurring in one process to the calibrated change of another.

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He said there were no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye. He said nothing makes contact with afferent nerves in the eye. He said the eyes are windows for the brain. We're these statements meant to be taken literally?

You said that afferent nerves aren't used to see but rods and cones are used to see. That indicates you do not believe rods and cones to be afferent photoreceptor.

He was very clear when he distinguished between afferent and efferent which you should understand by now. The connection between any external stimuli striking a nerve ending which then sends impulses to the brain for interpretation is the very definition of sense organ. If the brain does not decode the pattern of light which is believed to be responsible for normal sight, then the eyes cannot be called a sense organ.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was very clear when he distinguished between afferent and efferent which you should understand by now. The connection between any external stimuli striking a nerve ending which then sends impulses to the brain for interpretation is the very definition of sense organ. If the brain does not decode the pattern of light which is believed to be responsible for normal sight, then the eyes cannot be called a sense organ.

And that's why he is objectively, demonstrably wrong. Did you at least read the Wikipedia articles? All of this is established knowledge.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can a person see the Sun explode before it happens on any timeline?

Well, indeed. That's what happens when you put instantaneous vision together with relativity. I don't think it can happen, because I believe relativity is correct and that instantaneous vision is not the case.

I don't want to argue with you about Einstein's theories.

Then you have a problem!

You are presupposing that time itself slows down or speeds up, and therefore we are seeing events at different time intervals.

Nope. I'm presupposing the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. That's relativity.

All I can do is offer you Lessans' observations. If he is right, and it conflicts with present day theories, does that mean we throw out Lessans' observations, or do we rethink the present day theories?

Then your ideas do contradict relativity. That's all I am pointing out here. If you want to 'rethink' relativity, be my guest. But as it stands, it's in flat contradiction to Lessans.

I am quoting Louis Savain below. Please don't tell me that I am quoting crackpots so you can ignore his comments.

He's a crackpot. I've not ignored his comments: I've addressed them head on. Remember? Your latest quote continues the idiocy he presents, but it's neither coherent nor relevant to our discussion. Your ideas contradict relativity. Half the time you admit, and half the time you deny it. I've no idea why.