A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The special spenses (smell, taste, eye, ear and balance) play a significant role serving as exteroreceptors or antennas, that collect and transmit external sensations from the environment to the brain.

The stimuli itself is not what is sent to the brain. Receptors receive external stimuli, and convert them into electrical signals which are sent to the brain. It is a simple fact of biology that this is also what occurs in the eyes, just like with all the other main senses. So the distinction your father was trying to draw is plainly a bogus one.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can think what you want Lone Ranger. What will you say if he turns out to be right? I hope you will apologize.

Even if it somehow turns out that everything we know about neural physiology and anatomy, Special Relativity, cosmology, astronomy, basic physics, basic chemistry, and basic biology is wrong and Lessans was -- somehow -- right, I will never apologize for stating the truth.

You are as ignorant as a bag of hammers, and as dishonest as the day is long. You even admit, on occasion, that you have no reservations about lying when it suits your purpose -- which is often. That would not change even if Lessans was -- somehow -- proved right.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can think what you want Lone Ranger. What will you say if he turns out to be right? I hope you will apologize.

TLR, I will offer you the opportunity to tender your apology at my Hot Chocolate stand in Hell, to all the others who will be ice skating.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, I chose those two images precisely because it's so blatantly obvious which are optic neurons and which are olfactory neurons.


If peacegirl had even the slightest comprehension of the "standard model" of visual anatomy and how vision works -- as she has repeatedly claimed that she does -- she could immediately gain at least a tiny shred of credibility by simply saying which is which.

That she's apparently incapable of even this speaks volumes regarding her ignorance and dishonesty.

Not that anyone expected anything different, given that she has openly admitted on more than one occasion that she has no problems with "lying for Lessans."

I am not lying for Lessans. When did I ever say those words? I've said over and over and over again that his observations regarding language and how it's acquired led him to the conclusion that the eyes work differently than the other 4 sense organs. It didn't require dissection of the eye.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So, according to you:

Light hits a big red ball exactly 1 light minute away. Some of it is reflected - most of it is in the red spectrum. Then, after 1 minute, the light is turned off. The ball if no longer lit up. However, 30 seconds into this epxeriment, the ball changes color: it is now blue!

On earth, we have an observer and an instrument: a machine that exposes a small batch of chemicals at a rate of one batch per second. These chemicals react to light: if they are hit by red light, these chemicals turn red. If they are hit by blue light, they turn blue.

All ambient light is shielded from both observer and instrument so it cannot interfere: the only light that can reach either of them will have to be reflected off the ball.

According to you red light appeared at the retina the moment the ball was lit up, somehow. How did it get there? Also, this light appears at the retina so it never passed through a lens! So focusing is not a part of this at all! What does focusing even mean where efferent sight is concerned? What purpose can it possibly have?

They also react with the chemicals in the instrument from the first minute - they turn red, even though no red light has had time to arrive. After 30 batches, the rest of them turn blue, even though no light has had time to reach them yet either. Then, despite the fact that red light starts to arrive, they stop reacting from batch 60 onwards. From batch 90, blue light is arriving, but the chemicals do not react to them either.

After 1 minute has elapsed, red photons arrive and keep arriving for 30 seconds, followed by blue photons for another 30 seconds, but despite this, we see absolutely nothing: the light has been turned off and the ball is no longer lit up.

Do you see the essential impossibility? You have photons that cannot have arrived yet magically appearing and reacting with chemicals, as well as with the retina. You also keep talking about focusing... but if focusing has anything to do with this, then light has to pass through a lens... which does not happen according to you as light appears at the retina.

Of course light goes through the lens of the eye. That's what focuses the light. You are giving the same example that Spacemonkey gave with the postman delivering letters. From your description, it does look impossible because you are describing the afferent model to a T. How in the world can you expect a different outcome? How can you expect a red car to be seen before a blue car when the blue car was first? That's what you're saying and it doesn't apply?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I was referring to her belief (and her fake evidence) that the Holocaust never happened.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not lying for Lessans. When did I ever say those words? I've said over and over and over again that his observations regarding language and how it's acquired led him to the conclusion that the eyes work differently than the other 4 sense organs. It didn't require dissection of the eye.

Of course you are, but you don't need to say the words, the lying is evident in your posts for everyone to read. Whatever it was that Lessans "observed" (more like the wild imaginings in his head that he pulled out of his ass.) led him down the wrong path and to the wrong conclusions. I must admit that Lessans did have a vivid imagination for fiction.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was referring to her belief (and her fake evidence) that the Holocaust never happened.

Is that much like Lessans fake evidence, for his fake belief in the power of his ideas to bring world peace, in his "Brave New World Order Golden Age?"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If that is how you feel, then you are obviously wasting your time trying to convince people your idea is the One Truthy Truth through (pretend) evidence and logic: apparently these are such flimsy, inaccurate tools that you can make them say just about anything anyway!

But it turns out you just feel that applies to whatever you do not like, because you start out with this statement, and then proceed to try to prove that what you want is true.

The only difference is that Lessans made accurate observations. The rest of his demonstration followed from this premise.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course light goes through the lens of the eye. That's what focuses the light. You are giving the same example that Spacemonkey gave with the postman delivering letters. From your description, it does look impossible because you are describing the afferent model to a T. How in the world can you expect a different outcome? How can you expect a red car to be seen before a blue car when the blue car was first? That's what you're saying and it doesn't apply?

If the brain, through the eyes, observes the object directly, what is the purpose of the light going through the lens, and being focused on the retina? Yes from the description it does look impossible, because it is impossible. Vision does not work efferently.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The stimuli itself is not what is sent to the brain. Receptors receive external stimuli, and convert them into electrical signals which are sent to the brain. It is a simple fact of biology that this is also what occurs in the eyes, just like with all the other main senses. So the distinction your father was trying to draw is plainly a bogus one.

It is a fact of biology that the retina and optic nerve are connected, but the idea that these impulses or electrical signals are what comprise the raw material that allows for normal sight within the brain is not an open and shut case, as you believe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Even if it somehow turns out that everything we know about neural physiology and anatomy, Special Relativity, cosmology, astronomy, basic physics, basic chemistry, and basic biology is wrong and Lessans was -- somehow -- right, I will never apologize for stating the truth.

You are as ignorant as a bag of hammers, and as dishonest as the day is long. You even admit, on occasion, that you have no reservations about lying when it suits your purpose -- which is often. That would not change even if Lessans was -- somehow -- proved right.

Your inability to apologize would be on your conscience, not mine.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a fact of biology that the retina and optic nerve are connected, but the idea that these impulses or electrical signals are what comprise the raw material that allows for normal sight within the brain is not an open and shut case, as you believe.

Yes it is, you crazy person.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that Lessans made accurate observations. The rest of his demonstration followed from this premise.

Yes, Lessans made accurate observations of his fictional fantasy land, and everything else he wrote followed from that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a fact of biology that the retina and optic nerve are connected, but the idea that these impulses or electrical signals are what comprise the raw material that allows for normal sight within the brain is not an open and shut case, as you believe.

You're moving the goalposts, as you always do. The eyes transduce external stimuli into signals sent to the brain, just as the other senses do, and Lessans was flat wrong to claim otherwise.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not lying for Lessans.

So who are you lying for then? Just yourself?

[Spacemonkey]

Hey, Peacegirl! What traveling have the photons at the retina at 12:00 done? And when were they located at the Sun from which they came?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a fact of biology that the retina and optic nerve are connected, but the idea that these impulses or electrical signals are what comprise the raw material that allows for normal sight within the brain is not an open and shut case, as you believe.

It's not a case of what Spacemonkey or anyone else believes, it's what science has discovered and demonstrated to be true. It is a proven principle that impulses are generated from the photos striking the retina, being translated into impulses that are sent to the brain, and there interpreted as images of the outside world. That is what science has discovered and demonstrated to be true, not some fantasy that Lessans pulled out of his ass.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not lying for Lessans. When did I ever say those words?

Of course you've never called it "lying for Lessans." But you have admitted -- on more than one occasion -- that you see nothing wrong with lying when it suits your purpose.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a fact of biology that the retina and optic nerve are connected, but the idea that these impulses or electrical signals are what comprise the raw material that allows for normal sight within the brain is not an open and shut case, as you believe.

Then you have quite a problem, since the optic nerve is the only connection between the brain and retina, and the human optic nerve contains no efferent fibers.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your inability to apologize would be on your conscience, not mine.

Once again, I have absolutely nothing to apologize for. Even if it somehow turns out that Lessans was right, that doesn't change the fact that you're as ignorant as a bag of hammers and as dishonest as the day is long.

I cannot and will not apologize for pointing out the truth.



And once again, your inability to distinguish between olfactory and visual fibers clearly establishes that you have no understanding whatsoever of the relevant science. Since you've repeatedly claimed that you do, that alone is sufficient to demonstrate that you're a liar.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So who are you lying for then? Just yourself?

Obviously for herself, since she is hawking the book, trying to generate a meal ticket for herself from the book sales. Lessans will certainly not benefit from her current lying.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, "Making fun of a booze-addled elderly person is disgusting behavior" normally, but this is Peacegirl, so I think most would make an exception in her case. Just as a courtesy to her.

And yes, Please leave, just like Peacegirl has left before.

Oh no, I'm definitely not leaving the thread, doc. I'm just ignoring peacegirl so that I'm not tempted to make fun of her drunk-posting. There are some intelligent, funny motherfuckers posting in ol' peacegirl's threads, and I certainly don't want to miss the good stuff. Quitting the threads entirely would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course light goes through the lens of the eye. That's what focuses the light. You are giving the same example that Spacemonkey gave with the postman delivering letters. From your description, it does look impossible because you are describing the afferent model to a T. How in the world can you expect a different outcome? How can you expect a red car to be seen before a blue car when the blue car was first? That's what you're saying and it doesn't apply?

But this is not the afferent model - this is your model. If I was describing the afferent model, then it would be completely different.

In YOUR model, when the light is turned on and shines on the red ball, the light appears at the retina immediately and does not have to travel. Only now you are saying "of course it goes through the lens" so I guess you have changed your mind, and now the light appears at the lens, because that "focuses the light".

But according to you the detection of this light is not what sight is - sight is some sort of direct relationship with things out there. So how comes it requires light to come in, hit a lens, and then be redirected onto the retina - which is what focusing is? Also, does that not mean we still do not see "now", it is just that the delay between what is out there and what we see is smaller?

Also, what accounts for the way these photons appear just because there happens to be some light-sensitive chemicals around? And what is it about lenses that makes the photons appear there rather than at the retina? That is apparently what happens to other light-sensitive chemicals...

You see, if you actually try to look at any detail of your model, nothing makes sense.

[Vivisectus]

Oh no, I'm definitely not leaving the thread, doc. I'm just ignoring peacegirl so that I'm not tempted to make fun of her drunk-posting. There are some intelligent, funny motherfuckers posting in ol' peacegirl's threads, and I certainly don't want to miss the good stuff. Quitting the threads entirely would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

After the calf that lays the golden eggs has drowned, that is.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that Lessans made accurate observations. The rest of his demonstration followed from this premise.

I do love it when you talk waffle to me. Would you care to fill int he details for that claim? Explain step by step what the observation was regarding sight and how the rest of the "demonstration" followed from the premise that he made an accurate observation?

Of course not. Because that was just some waffle you though sounded good. You cannot even begin to back that up. Nor does it make sense - you more or less randomly put the words observations , premise and demonstration into a sentence. You use these words in a highly idiosyncratic way, which allows you to give it any meaning you want in retrospect.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

After the calf that lays the golden eggs has drowned, that is.

And the bush in the moss gathers two rolling hands.