A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So what does you mean when you say "focusing"? What is happening when the brain focuses the eyes?

When there is enough stimulation to the baby from the 4 senses, he begins to desire to see what it is he is experiencing which causes the brain to focus the eyes, or to work together as a unit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Can people who are born deaf see?

Of course. Just because one sense is not working doesn't mean the other senses won't stimulate the baby. Just holding and rocking a baby is enough to stimulate it. The sense of touch is very powerful.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That is a combination of what Lessans wrote in the book, and what you have added in trying to justify his nonsense. The book is on my computer as a PDF download and your addition is buried in this thread.

There is nothing in the pdf that says the brain sees objects directly. You probably misinterpreted this sentence.

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.

[Vivisectus]

Peacegirl, what does "focus" mean in this context? What, according to you and your dad, is happening (and to what) when focusing happens?

Also, did you notice that he says he is about to prove something in the paragraph above, but never actually does? It remains a simple claim, a statement of belief or opinion. Can you explain why he believes that so we can see if we find those reasons convincing also?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When there is enough stimulation to the baby from the 4 senses, he begins to desire to see what it is he is experiencing which causes the brain to focus the eyes, or to work together as a unit.

ANd what is that "focusing" you speak of? What happens to what when focusing happens?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, but science does know how the senses work, and that includes vision. That you and Lessans don't understand how science works, or how the senses work, does not affect what science knows and can demonstrate.

Sorry, but they don't know everything. This is one of those times.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, what does "focus" mean in this context? What, according to you and your dad, is happening (and to what) when focusing happens?

Also, did you notice that he says he is about to prove something in the paragraph above, but never actually does? It remains a simple claim, a statement of belief or opinion. Can you explain why he believes that so we can see if we find those reasons convincing also?

I understand that these were claims that he did not empirically test in the usual way. But his observational skills were incredible. I want to move forward so you can understand how the brain works, in his view, and why it matters. I hope you find his reasons convincing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

ANd what is that "focusing" you speak of? What happens to what when focusing happens?

What happens is that the external world would come into view. Obviously, if the child had any kind of eye problem (such as myopia) things would be blurred, but that's a different issue.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happens is that the external world would come into view. Obviously, if the child had any kind of eye problem (such as myopia) things would be blurred, but that's a different issue.

That is the end result, not what is happening.You seem to be struggling to answer my question. Is it then that "focusing" is just a different way of saying "looking at"?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Me too...

Will Peacegirl answer my questions today?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is the end result, not what is happening.You seem to be struggling to answer my question. Is it then that "focusing" is just a different way of saying "looking at"?

No, it's another way of saying what it says, namely, focus. If an infant cannot focus, he cannot see the world through eyesight. Part of the process has to do with being stimulated by the other senses. So it's just being able to "look at", but that is the end result.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Will Peacegirl answer my questions today?

Not now, and not ever. When you going to fuck off?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, that's what he's disputing.

Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans was wrong.

Mimic, repeat, mimic, repeat, mimic, repeat, mimic, repeat. Your words have no impact on the truth.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's another way of saying what it says, namely, focus. If an infant cannot focus, he cannot see the world through eyesight. Part of the process has to do with being stimulated by the other senses. So it's just being able to "look at", but that is the end result.

It has been demonstrated and stated that infants can focus, at first far enough to see their mother while nursing, and then as they develop they can focus on objects farther away. Eye sight does not depend on the other senses, it works independently of them. Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Mimic, repeat, mimic, repeat, mimic, repeat, mimic, repeat. Your words have no impact on the truth.

You are correct, my words will not change the truth, my words are the truth.

And that is why you are so upset.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's another way of saying what it says, namely, focus. If an infant cannot focus, he cannot see the world through eyesight. Part of the process has to do with being stimulated by the other senses. So it's just being able to "look at", but that is the end result.

Focus means focus? But it cannot mean what we normally mean: to redirect light to hit a certain spot on a retina or sensor. The word refers to an inherently afferent process, and one that you and the book say is not really involved in how we see.

Which is why I keep asking you - what do you mean when you say focus? What happens when one "focuses", the way you and the book use the word? I currently do not understand what you mean when you say the word, and I would like to be able to see if I agree with you or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Focus means focus? But it cannot mean what we normally mean: to redirect light to hit a certain spot on a retina or sensor. The word refers to an inherently afferent process, and one that you and the book say is not really involved in how we see.

Which is why I keep asking you - what do you mean when you say focus? What happens when one "focuses", the way you and the book use the word? I currently do not understand what you mean when you say the word, and I would like to be able to see if I agree with you or not.

When one focuses, the way the book uses the word, is to be able to use the light that is striking the eye, to see. As Lessans stated, regardless of how much light is present or how colorful the object might be, a newborn would not be able to see it until other sense experience gives this baby the desire to see that which it is experiencing, which activates the brain to focus the eyes. Until then, the eyes are not focused and it has nothing to do with an undeveloped ciliary muscle. If this isn't enough of an explanation, I'm sorry. I cannot give you more. Does this mean you don't want to move on?

[Vivisectus]

When one focuses, the way the book uses the word, is to be able to use the light that is striking the eye, to see. As Lessans stated, regardless of how much light is present or how colorful the object might be, a newborn would not be able to see it until other sense experience gives this baby the desire to see that which it is experiencing, which activates the brain to focus the eyes. Until then, the eyes are not focused and it has nothing to do with an undeveloped ciliary muscle. If this isn't enough of an explanation, I'm sorry. I cannot give you more. Does this mean you don't want to move on?

But then "to focus" simply means "to look"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But then "to focus" simply means "to look"?

If you're comfortable with that, then fine. It does involve looking, but to look the brain needs to be activated in order to focus the eyes. This process begins with a desire to see which comes from stimulation of the other senses. Now let's move on, okay?

[Vivisectus]

But that does not work at all here:

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.

He then desires to see the source of his experience by looking, as binoculars? Clearly this is not the case: he is referring to some process or action of focusing. And it cannot be focusing as in optics: light does not have anything to do with how an image is formed, except for being required somehow.

We see the same thing again here:

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

Focusing is something that happens to eyes, apparently. It is some process. But it is not the process of shifting the focal point of a lens to redirect light in order to create an image, which is our normal understanding of the word.

Now considering that the mechanism by which efferent sight supposedly works is not discussed, and your father only seems to have known that it existed, not how it worked or what it consisted of, what is this focusing?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When one focuses, the way the book uses the word, is to be able to use the light that is striking the eye, to see. As Lessans stated, regardless of how much light is present or how colorful the object might be, a newborn would not be able to see it until other sense experience gives this baby the desire to see that which it is experiencing, which activates the brain to focus the eyes. Until then, the eyes are not focused and it has nothing to do with an undeveloped ciliary muscle. If this isn't enough of an explanation, I'm sorry. I cannot give you more. Does this mean you don't want to move on?

Lessans was wrong. Vision does not depend on any other sensory input to function, seeing happens independently of the other senses, but that is not to say that a person will look to see the source of one of the other inputs. But vision does not depend on input from the other senses to function or begin. Infants can see as soon as their eyes develop the ability to focus on an object whether there is other sensory input or not.

[thedoc]

Lessans assumed that the brain needed input from the other 4 senses to desire to see the source of that input. This is an incorrect assumption, and any conclusion based on that assumption will probably also be wrong. It is possible that a person starting with an incorrect assumption will make additional errors and come up with a correct claim, but this is not true in Lessans case.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But that does not work at all here:

He then desires to see the source of his experience by looking, as binoculars? Clearly this is not the case: he is referring to some process or action of focusing. And it cannot be focusing as in optics: light does not have anything to do with how an image is formed, except for being required somehow.

We see the same thing again here:

Focusing is something that happens to eyes, apparently. It is some process. But it is not the process of shifting the focal point of a lens to redirect light in order to create an image, which is our normal understanding of the word.

Now considering that the mechanism by which efferent sight supposedly works is not discussed, and your father only seems to have known that it existed, not how it worked or what it consisted of, what is this focusing?

I don't consider this focusing as some other process. The only difference is that we cannot focus at birth until other precipitating events of sound, touch, taste, and hearing occur first. I hope you don't throw in the towel just because all of your questions are not answered at this point. They may be clarified later on as we continue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans was wrong. Vision does not depend on any other sensory input to function, seeing happens independently of the other senses, but that is not to say that a person will look to see the source of one of the other inputs.

NO, he said that stimuli from the senses starts the process which allows one to see what exists, not the source of the input.