A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

She has Lessans solution

The puzzle is 35 groups of 3 letters
each letter A-O used 7 times total
Never a duplicate pairing so again if ABC is one group then AB, BC, or AC cannot appear in any other group of 3

[naturalist.atheist]

Has peacegirl shown that solution?

[peacegirl]

This is interesting. If a blind person could see from a bionic eye, it would be proof of afferent vision. I remember reading that people can only see shadows, but not clear images:

In 1995, surgeons in the United States began testing a bionic eye, which contains a miniature black and white TV camera. Signals are carried from the camera by a wire under the skin to a particular area of the skull. This area lies over the part of the brain that processes visual signals. The wire is attached to 256 tiny electrodes, each fitted to a small cluster of brain cells. In this way, it is hoped, electronic impulses from the camera will create visual images in the brain.

http://www.daviddarling.info/childre..._Chapter5.html

In March, the research company Bionic Vision Australia announced the development of a bionic eye meant to ease suffering from degenerative vision loss. The company’s director, Anthony Burkitt, answered my questions this week.

How was the bionic eye made?

Making a bionic eye is an extremely complex task, but the team at Bionic Vision Australia brings together world leaders in each of the areas required for the development of this technology, such as medicine, engineering and biotechnology. By tapping into the best scientific expertise across the country, we are able to take a leading role internationally in bionic vision.

We are still in the process of developing a bionic eye suitable for human clinical trials. This device has been 10 years in the making, but we are confident that we now have the technology suitable for trials and commercialisation. Bionic Vision Australia is a consortium of researchers from the University of New South Wales, the University of Melbourne, National ICT Australia, the Bionic Ear Institute and the Centre for Eye Research Australia.

How does it work?

The bionic eye prototype consists of a camera attached to a pair of glasses which transmits high frequency radio signals to a microchip implanted in the retina. Electrodes in the chip then convert these signals into electrical impulses to stimulate the remaining cells in the retina that connect to the optic nerve. The impulses are then interpreted by the visual cortex of the brain as an image. With this technology, we anticipate that sight can be restored to a level where users of the bionic eye are no longer legally blind.

Who would use it?

This technology requires some cells to still be functioning in the retina and for the visual pathway from the retina to the brain to still be intact. As such, the bionic eye will be of most use to patients suffering from degenerative visual-impairment conditions, such as retinitis pigmentosa and age-related macular degeneration. Following the successful adoption of the bionic eye with these patient groups, we hope to expand the application of the technology to address a broader range of visual-impairment conditions.

Retinitis pigmentosa, the predominant cause of inherited blindness, affects 1.5 million people worldwide and is characterised by the progressive loss of photoreceptor cells over the patient’s life. Age-related macular degeneration usually affects people over the age of 65 and results in the loss of vision in the centre of the visual field. It is responsible for 48 percent of all legal blindness in Australia.

When will it be available?

Developing a bionic eye for human use is a major project, but we believe that by 2011 we will be ready to undertake the first clinical trials of the first advanced prototype. We plan to have a prototype ready for commercial development by 2014.

Behind the bionic eye | SmartPlanet

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is interesting. If a blind person could see from a bionic eye, it would be proof of afferent vision.

What exactly do you mean when you use the term "afferent vision"?

All I've found is vision that involves afferent neurons.

Afferent nerve fiber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That can't be what all the ruckus is about.

[LadyShea]

There are many experimental products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_eye

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Has peacegirl shown that solution?

No she refuses to.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain lies right behind the eyes, which would mean that the brain and the eyes work in such a way that you can't separate the two.

Sure you can. You just cut the optic nerve. There is no other connection between the brain and the retina, and that connection only carries signals in one direction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm wondering why a scientific journal would include observation, description and analysis as part of their criteria, and no one here will give him a chance. Doesn't that tell you something?

Since all scientific research involves observation, description and analysis, points made in this article are applicable to historical and descriptive, as well as to experimental, research.

How to write a scholarly research report. Rudner, Lawrence M. & William D. Schafer

Because observation, description and analysis are part of the scientific method. However, they represent only part of the scientific method, but they represent the entirety of Lessans' method (excepting, of course, his allegedly unique ability to see relations that other people can't see). Lessans' method (if it can properly described as such) omits other essential elements, things like data collection, documentation, experiments conducted under controlled conditions, replicablity, etc.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

What exactly do you mean when you use the term "afferent vision"?

All I've found is vision that involves afferent neurons.

Afferent nerve fiber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That can't be what all the ruckus is about.

But it is. Lessans'/peacegirl's claim is that vision is efferent (i.e. that the brain looks out at the world through the eyes as opposed to interpreting data that enters the brain from the eyes) despite the fact that the optic nerve, the sole connection between the brain and the retina, is composed of afferent nerve fibers and allows for the transmission of signals in one direction only, from the eyes to the brain. She has yet to propose a mechanism for efferent vision, other than the fact that the eyes and brain are really close to each other.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Has peacegirl shown that solution?

In my opinion this puzzle is a 'Red Herring' ment to divert attention from the real issues, I had a solution but she moved the goal posts by clarifing (or changing) the rules as it went along. I lost interest, another person had a good solution, but it didn't exactly match what peacegirl claimed she had and she denied its accuracy. I don't think peacegirl can recognize a solution unless it is the exact set of combinations she claims to have, which is doubtful. There are probably several solutions but Peacegirl will never admit to any of them.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

That can't be what all the ruckus is about.

Much as I hate to say it, it might be useful to try to wade thru the 400+ pages of this thread, or the 500+ pages of Lessans book, (If I knew how I would post the PDF I have saved on my computer, or if I knew how I would send it to you). I do know which would be worse, and the 400 pages of the thread would be much more informative, even if a bit longer.

Oh, and the ruckus is about one of the few ideas in the book that have a definite physological handle to get hold of. Much of the rest of the book is philosophical or religious dogma that is difficult to argue or defend.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

But it is. Lessans'/peacegirl's claim is that vision is efferent (i.e. that the brain looks out at the world through the eyes as opposed to interpreting data that enters the brain from the eyes) despite the fact that the optic nerve, the sole connection between the brain and the retina, is composed of afferent nerve fibers and allows for the transmission of signals in one direction only, from the eyes to the brain. She has yet to propose a mechanism for efferent vision, other than the fact that the eyes and brain are really close to each other.

That and that the brain sees the object that it is 'looking at' instantly and not by the light that is reflected or emited from the object. Efferent vision states that we are preceiving the object itself and not the light that is coming from it. The afferent nature of the optic nerve is somehow irrevelant to the process of seeing, and the brain actually projects the image out onto a blank screen of reality. Oh joy, what an idea?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No she refuses to.

I see. Is there some reason for this?

The only thing I can think of is that she isn't quite sure of the problem that Lessans solved and so based on the sketchy particulars she has supplied so far she is afraid that people will show that the solution presented doesn't solve the sketchy problem as she understands it and thus discredit Lessans as a mathematician.

For some reason peacegirl thinks it is important for us to see Lessans as a mathematician because I presume Lessans book is full of mathematics. But other than the puzzle, which is a combinatorics problem, I haven't seen any math. I have no idea why it is any more important for Lessans to be seen as a mathematician than as a plumber as far as its relevance to his book is concerned.

At this point it is hard for me to figure out what in the world peacegirl is trying to accomplish. She either has nothing or is unwilling to supply the backup for Lessans claims. She seems to think critical thinking is important but as far as I can tell she expects everyone to just bow down to Lessans for no other reason than she thinks Lessans is fabulous.

Peacegirl, this has got to be a very elaborate and belabored joke or you just use a different language from the rest of us.

Which is it?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That and that the brain sees the object that it is 'looking at' instantly and not by the light that is reflected or emited from the object. Efferent vision states that we are preceiving the object itself and not the light that is coming from it. The afferent nature of the optic nerve is somehow irrevelant to the process of seeing, and the brain actually projects the image out onto a blank screen of reality. Oh joy, what an idea?

That is the other thing that has got me confused, she seems to switch between afferent and efferent as if they mean the same thing. My understand of the words as that afferent means "inbound" and "efferent" means outbound. And in the context of human biology refer to the direction of neuron signaling. Afferent would come from a sensor like a taste bud on the tongue and efferent would go to a actuator like a finger muscle. It means nothing more than that.

How images are all mixed up in that I have no idea. It just reinforces my impression that peacegirl and Lessans do not speak the same language as the rest of the world. It doesn't help her cause at all. She keeps saying that Lessans was not an educated man so I assume he made up his own terminology. And that is all fine and good, but Lessans died and took his special language with him and his book doesn't bridge the gap at all and peacegirl is no help at all.

So peacegirl is left all dressed up with a book that has no place to go and she doesn't appear to be at all prepared to bridge the gap since she seems to be as educated as Lessans.

girl, what are you thinking?

[Vivisectus]

Peacegirl and Lessans argue for some nebulous sort of direct relationship between the brain and the object that is being seen. They seem to think that the ancient Greeks were right and that sight is something that comes from the brain and goes outward. How it is possible that any information travels without any particles travelling is not explained. Detection is occurring without anything carrying that information to the brain, through an unknown process.

It is not made very clear really, because on the one hand they argue we project that which we have been conditioned to see on to a "screen of undeniable essence" (or was it substance?), the nature of which is also not explained. I assume it is a philosophical concept rather than a physical one. Apparently we learn what to project onto this screen from our other senses, but here too the language is extremely vague. Oddly enough, we apparently learn to project "ugly" unto certain sets of features from hearing someone say it in a negative tone of voice over and over, in combination with seeing those features.

How we know what to project is not covered. Perhaps we directly observe basic shapes, and then supply the detail from our conditioning, or something.

On the other hand, it is argued that when we see over great distances, there is no time-delay, and we see what is actually there. This is were we run into some real issues, as Lessans made some very definite statements regarding the nature of sight that directly contradict special relativity. He either did not notice this or felt there was no need to actually deal with special relativity, as he doesn't mention it.

When you read the text, you find out that the only reason he came up with this outlandish explanation is that he is trying to remove all possibility of hurt from reality, and in his opinion a lot of hurt is caused by value-judgements. He could have dealt with this by simply saying that we often assign certain values to certain things based on our cultural conditioning, and that the value we assign does not have an objective reality, but he does not do this.

Oddly enough, Lessans seems to feel that we all think beauty has an almost physical reality, and is not just a subjective valuation. In order to dispel it, he says that everything we see is conditioned, and that sight as we understand it does not exist.

To rid the world of the evils of value-judgements, he proposes we banish the use of words such as "Beautiful", which he says implies that that which is not "Beautiful" must then be ugly, which causes hurt and feelings of inferiority. Tellingly, "Intelligent" and "Educated" are to be done away with too.

What is not explained is how we are then to retain any standards. When I asked this question regarding music, for instance, I was told that "A musician that can play up to a certain standard would be encouraged to try to play professionally" or something along those lines. How this differs from making a subjective value judgement that is almost identical to calling someone pretty based on your personal preferences is not explained. After all, that standard also does not have an objective reality, and implies that such a thing as "sub-standard" exists, which could lead to people feeling they are inferior musicians.

Asking these questions and raising these objections is a sure sign of on of several things according to Peacegirl:

1: You did not read the text
2: You do not understand the text
3: Enraged by the challenge to what you thought you knew, you are being willfully ignorant and are refusing to learn from the text.

The possibility that the text is wrong is never entertained.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are many experimental products http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_eye

We'll just have to wait and see if any of them work, but the one that would prove afferent vision correct is the Microsystem System Visual Prosthesis (MIVIP) because it sends impulses directly from the optic nerve to the visual cortex.

[LadyShea]

girl, what are you thinking?

To be fair, she thinks she has the answer to war, poverty, and unhappiness. Lessans Golden Age is a perfect world.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We'll just have to wait and see if any of them work, but the one that would prove afferent vision correct is the Microsystem System Visual Prosthesis (MIVIP) because it sends impulses directly from the optic nerve to the visual cortex.

Jerome Burne on microchip implants | Education | The Guardian

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No she refuses to.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

I see. Is there some reason for this?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only thing I can think of is that she isn't quite sure of the problem that Lessans solved and so based on the sketchy particulars she has supplied so far she is afraid that people will show that the solution presented doesn't solve the sketchy problem as she understands it and thus discredit Lessans as a mathematician.

The problem is solved. The proof was written down and the solution is right there in black and white. But I am not going to put the answer online because people will think I got the answer from somewhere else. I will tell someone if they got the answer right, but they won't need me to tell them this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For some reason peacegirl thinks it is important for us to see Lessans as a mathematician because I presume Lessans book is full of mathematics. But other than the puzzle, which is a combinatorics problem, I haven't seen any math. I have no idea why it is any more important for Lessans to be seen as a mathematician than as a plumber as far as its relevance to his book is concerned.

Whether it is a combinatorics problem or not, if it's that easy, I'm asking people to figure it out. I don't know what else to do to convince people that this man had amazing insight into human nature. BTW, you can't be serious LadyShea that you don't see why it is important that he has strong credentials. Everyone and his brother is judging him by certain standards. They want to know what gave him the right to claim such an important discovery (when he didn't go through formal training), which is understandable, but don't act like it doesn't matter. It matters very much. If they have a little bit of confidence in him (as I do) because they see that he had unusual mathematical ability, they might think twice before throwing this knowledge into a scrap heap.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

At this point it is hard for me to figure out what in the world peacegirl is trying to accomplish. She either has nothing or is unwilling to supply the backup for Lessans claims. She seems to think critical thinking is important but as far as I can tell she expects everyone to just bow down to Lessans for no other reason than she thinks Lessans is fabulous.

Peacegirl, this has got to be a very elaborate and belabored joke or you just use a different language from the rest of us.

Which is it?

It has nothing to do with putting Lessans on a pedestal, or making him the center of attention. You should know that by now. If I am using a different language than the rest of you, then somehow the language barrier has to be rectified, or else this thread will end up being nothing more than sheer entertainment.

[LadyShea]

I only said "No she refuses to". The rest was N.A. but you have it attributed to me.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And so is a preponderance of evidence in a court of law that often puts an innocent person in prison for life.

I would like a citation for a court case in which a person was given life imprisonment using the preponderance of evidence as the burden of proof. You say this often occurs, so you should have no problem doing so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Jerome Burne on microchip implants | Education | The Guardian

"This is not true vision," stresses professor Claude Veraart, the researcher leading the project at the University of Louvaine in Brussels. "And it's definitely not a cure for blindness, but it is something to help people cope better with their impairment."

[Vivisectus]

It sounds rather dreary to me actually. It reduces all human interaction to a sort of rules-of-the-road system. Love is downgraded into a simple mating ritual for a species that mates for life. Wherever diversity can lead to conflict, it is abolished or officially ignored.

Life would be a more or less empty ritual, a sort of meaningless dance that you go through, in my opinion.

[Vivisectus]

double poast

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"This is not true vision," stresses professor Claude Veraart, the researcher leading the project at the University of Louvaine in Brussels. "And it's definitely not a cure for blindness, but it is something to help people cope better with their impairment."

Not yet. But it does show that electrically stimulating the optic nerve, in the same way as it would be stimulated by light hitting the retina, is translated into visual information. Rather compelling, really.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Sure you can. You just cut the optic nerve. There is no other connection between the brain and the retina, and that connection only carries signals in one direction.

Because observation, description and analysis are part of the scientific method. However, they represent only part of the scientific method, but they represent the entirety of Lessans' method (excepting, of course, his allegedly unique ability to see relations that other people can't see). Lessans' method (if it can properly described as such) omits other essential elements, things like data collection, documentation, experiments conducted under controlled conditions, replicablity, etc.

Then why didn't they say that observation, description, and analysis are only adjuncts to experimental research? They certainly weren't clear then.

Points made in this article are applicable to historical and descriptive, as well as to experimental, research.