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.
But that's how you are projecting what you think it would be like. It is not what it would actually be like.
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.
The ruckus has to do with the shake up of the scientific community if efferent vision actually turned out to be true. If we see afferently, then that means the brain is interpreting all incoming stimuli from light. This would mean the eyes are a sense organ, because it meets the definition of what a sense organ is. If the eyes are efferent, then it changes our relationship with the external world and what we are actually seeing, not what we believe we are seeing. It also means that light is a condition of sight, not a cause of sight; in other words, it allows us to see what's out there in the real world in real time, which would mean we are not seeing the past, only the present. People are contesting this by saying that the universe would be unrecognizable and unlivable. They also say that all of the successful technologies wouldn't work. I don't see where efferent vision would cause all these problems that people are claiming.
I don't see where efferent vision would cause all these problems that people are claiming.
Then start by explaining how it is possible for us to see the image on a computer screen when this computer screen does nothing but emit light. We should just see a screen - the light is merely there to make vision possible, it is not what we see. So how come that in stead we see an image?
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
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.
Did you read the whole thing? What do you think description and analysis refers to? Description of what? Analysis of what?
When writing your manuscript, keep in mind that the purpose is to inform the readers of what you investigated, why and how you conducted your investigation, the results and your conclusions.
What, why, how, results and conclusions
How many of these did Lessans include?
Quote:
As appropriate for your research, try to include a statement of the problem, the people you studied, the dependent and independent variables, the instruments, the design, major findings, and conclusions.
The people studied, the variables, the instruments, the design, findings and conclusions
Lessans never mentioned his subjects, variables, instruments, design, or findings...just his conclusions
Quote:
Method - The method section includes separate descriptions of the sample, the materials, and the procedures.
Describe your sample with sufficient detail so that it is clear what population(s) the sample represents.
A description of your instruments, including all surveys, tests, questionnaires, interview forms, and other tools used to provide data
The design of the study, whether it is a case study, a survey, a controlled experiment, a meta-analysis, or some other type of research, is conveyed through the procedures subsection
Results - Present a summary of what you found in the results section
Start with a description of any complications, such as protocol violations and missing data that may have occurred....compute and report effect sizes or, at a minimum, be sure you provide enough information so effect sizes can be computed.
None of this to be found in Lessans work
Quote:
A key concept in the Uniform Requirements is that individuals identified as authors should have made significant contributions to the conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data
Lessans gave us no data, at all, nor did he have a design
It also means that light is a condition of sight, not a cause of sight; in other words, it allows us to see what's out there in the real world in real time, which would mean we are not seeing the past, only the present.
I don't see where efferent vision would cause all these problems that people are claiming.
It's not efferent vision (meaning the brain looking out through the eyes, rather than receiving info from the eyes and creating an image) that causes the problems with some technologies*, or would make the universe unrecognizable and unlivable, it's the "in real time" that causes the majority of the problems...on accounta it contradicts the well tested and well supported Theory of Relativity, on which those technologies and our recognizable livable Universe rely.
*Efferent vision does cause issues with optical technologies, as they were designed and work based on the current scientific understanding of vision
Do you really think I'm going to waste hours of time writing up a more detailed description that you won't even bother to read?
Quote:
From what I've gathered there is data that shows a series of lines. To make a leap and say that the brain uses these lines to reconstruct an image is saying nothing more than "the brain reconstructs an image". This still falls within the realm of theory.
Well, you're displaying your ignorance again then. You could do something radical and go read the papers yourself. There are quite a lot of them, and they go back more than 50 years, and they do indeed provide a rather detailed description of how the visual cortex interprets impulses from the optic nerve.
Maybe I was wrong; I can admit that. Maybe there is a transduction of some type, but that does not prove conclusively what is going on. Lessans never talked about transduction. He only said that light strikes the optic nerve. I am the one that is trying to figure out where there could be a snag in what you believe is flawless.
Quote:
Some studies are valid and some aren't. It all depends on the criteria used, which are not the same in all cases. Just because a study is in a scientific journal does not give it automatic credibility. 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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Why yes it does. It tells me that you have no idea at all what you're talking about, but that you won't admit it.
I would admit to an error if there was no other explanation than what you deem foolproof.
Quote:
That was not a clear representation of the man. The guy even said he couldn't help but think the image looked catlike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
They used only 177 electrodes. If you sampled only 177 pixels from your computer screen, you could probably get a crude idea of what the original display looked like, but it sure wouldn't be a very detailed picture. If the researchers had implanted more and smaller electrodes, they could have gotten a more detailed representation of what the cat was seeing.
That is probably true. The question still remains. Is the brain doing what you believe it's doing.
Quote:
It could be that the cat's skeleton was being scanned, not the man's face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Okay, I really don't like to use smileys, but this demands one.
Hey, I agree. I'll join in because anyone can make a mistake, including me. I realized when I posted it that it was ridiculous. I was just so frustrated by the attitude that this proves afferent vision, that I said something that didn't even make sense. So please move over; I can laugh at myself.
Quote:
Did they replicate this study to confirm their hunch? Did they perform the study on other animals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Did you miss the point where it was explained that these sorts of experiments have been conducted for over 50 years?
Yes, but these experiments could not have been conducted 50 years ago. So what criteria were they using?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
As an aside, somewhat similar experiments have been done with Barn Owls. What's interesting here is that the owls use their sense of hearing to build a "brain map" of their surroundings in very much the same way that cats and humans use their eyes to build brain maps of their surroundings. What's more, the owls actually use the optic tectum of the brain to create these brain maps -- from auditory data -- in much the same way that we use the optic tectum to build a brain map of the space around us with visual data.
I believe there is validity to some of these experiments, but to make a leap from spacial recognition to individual recognition is, to me, far fetched, and does not address the particulars of this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
In other words, the owls can use the visual centers of their brains to process auditory data and so build a brain map of their surroundings in much the same way that we use visual data to build brain maps. What's more, studies of neural processing in people who are blind strongly suggests that at least some humans can do the same thing -- that is, use the visual centers of their brains to process auditory data and build 3-dimensional maps of their surroundings in their brains.
That's true. I saw this boy on television who used auditory feedback by clicking to determine his spacial surroundings. It was amazing. But I still don't see where this relates to efferent vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
And yes, when you monitor their brain activities, the appropriate neurons are activated when you see (or hear) something. That is to say, the brain literally maps out your surroundings on the cerebral cortex.
Right, 7 of each letter, arranged in groups of 3. The puzzle states 7 lines of 5 groups, but this seems extraneous. If you have 35 groups of 3, with no repeated pairings, it doesn't matter how they're arranged.
Sure, you could spread it out horizontally or any other way and still come up with the right answer.
If you understand this then how is it that you don't understand the solution when you see it?
If you are not a mathematician you don't have to pretend you are just because you think Lessans was a mathematician.
I admit I am not a mathematician and I don't claim to be. But I have his answer right in front of me. It is correct because in the solution there was no letter that was twice with the same letter.
Do you really think I'm going to waste hours of time writing up a more detailed description that you won't even bother to read?
Quote:
From what I've gathered there is data that shows a series of lines. To make a leap and say that the brain uses these lines to reconstruct an image is saying nothing more than "the brain reconstructs an image". This still falls within the realm of theory.
Well, you're displaying your ignorance again then. You could do something radical and go read the papers yourself. There are quite a lot of them, and they go back more than 50 years, and they do indeed provide a rather detailed description of how the visual cortex interprets impulses from the optic nerve.
Maybe I was wrong; I can admit that. Maybe there is a transduction of some type, but that does not prove conclusively what is going on. Lessans never talked about transduction. He only said that light strikes the optic nerve. I am the one that is trying to figure out where there could be a snag in what you believe is flawless.
Quote:
Some studies are valid and some aren't. It all depends on the criteria used, which are not the same in all cases. Just because a study is in a scientific journal does not give it automatic credibility. 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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Why yes it does. It tells me that you have no idea at all what you're talking about, but that you won't admit it.
I would admit to an error if there was no other explanation than what you deem foolproof.
Quote:
That was not a clear representation of the man. The guy even said he couldn't help but think the image looked catlike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
They used only 177 electrodes. If you sampled only 177 pixels from your computer screen, you could probably get a crude idea of what the original display looked like, but it sure wouldn't be a very detailed picture. If the researchers had implanted more and smaller electrodes, they could have gotten a more detailed representation of what the cat was seeing.
That is probably true. The question still remains. Is the brain doing what you believe it's doing.
Quote:
It could be that the cat's skeleton was being scanned, not the man's face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Okay, I really don't like to use smileys, but this demands one.
Hey, I agree. I'll join in because anyone can make a mistake, including me. I realized when I posted it that it was ridiculous. I was just so frustrated by the attitude that this proves afferent vision, that I said something that didn't even make sense. So please move over; I can laugh at myself.
Quote:
Did they replicate this study to confirm their hunch? Did they perform the study on other animals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Did you miss the point where it was explained that these sorts of experiments have been conducted for over 50 years?
Yes, but these experiments could not have been conducted 50 years ago. So what criteria were they using?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
As an aside, somewhat similar experiments have been done with Barn Owls. What's interesting here is that the owls use their sense of hearing to build a "brain map" of their surroundings in very much the same way that cats and humans use their eyes to build brain maps of their surroundings. What's more, the owls actually use the optic tectum of the brain to create these brain maps -- from auditory data -- in much the same way that we use the optic tectum to build a brain map of the space around us with visual data.
I believe there is validity to some of these experiments, but to make a leap from spacial recognition to individual recognition is, to me, far fetched, and does not address the particulars of this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
In other words, the owls can use the visual centers of their brains to process auditory data and so build a brain map of their surroundings in much the same way that we use visual data to build brain maps. What's more, studies of neural processing in people who are blind strongly suggests that at least some humans can do the same thing -- that is, use the visual centers of their brains to process auditory data and build 3-dimensional maps of their surroundings in their brains.
That's true. I saw this boy on television who used auditory feedback by clicking to determine his spacial surroundings. It was amazing. But I still don't see where this relates to efferent vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
And yes, when you monitor their brain activities, the appropriate neurons are activated when you see (or hear) something. That is to say, the brain literally maps out your surroundings on the cerebral cortex.
Is that neat, or what?
It is really neat. In fact, it's impressive.
If the visual centers can also process auditory information, doesn't that indicate that both sight and hearing are senses?
Naaa, that's all irrelevant. Babies not being able to focus properly at first or the common misconception about the way dogs see, now that is compelling evidence!
Not a bunch of hooplah about stimulating the optical nerve resulting in visual information showing up in the brain...
Yes, but these experiments could not have been conducted 50 years ago. So what criteria were they using?
People have been implanting electrodes into animals' brains and directly measuring how the brain responds to sensory inputs since the 1950s. Go look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.
Quote:
Lessans never talked about transduction. He only said that light strikes the optic nerve.
No, light does not strike the optic nerve in any meaningful sense. Light strikes and is absorbed by cells of the retina. These cells transduce it into electrochemical impulses. Those are transferred to the cells that make up the optic nerve, which relay them to the brain.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Last edited by The Lone Ranger; 09-13-2011 at 06:01 PM.
Here's a solution that uses each of the letters seven times with no pair appearing in more than one group.
It's presented in a logical order with all the permutations of A appearing first, then the remaining permutations of B, and so on. So in this solution, the triplet DEF is absent.
ABC ADE AFG AHI AJK
ALM ANO BDF BEG BHJ
BIK BLN BMO CDG CEF
CHK CIJ CLO CMN DHL
DIM DJN DKO EHM EIL
EJO EKN FHN FIO FJL
FKM GHO GIN GJM GKL
It is unfortunate that 'efferent vision has taked up so much space on this thread, given that it was unnecessary to Lessans main point, and is demonstrably wrong. Lessans use of it does, however, demonstrate his lack of understanding of psychology and the physiology of the optic system, which is understandable given his lack of education. The other space waster on this thread is the puzzle, currently being discussed again, used as a demonstration of Lessans mathematical prowess, but without verification there is no evidence that he had even solved it himself, only Peacegirl's assurances much like the assurances in the book that the ideas were true. I would not be surprised that Lessans did have a solution, and given the wording with which the puzzle is presented, it might be a con-artists trick question. Much like this little puzzle,
Start with 2 rows of coins one row of 4 and the other row of 3 arranged like a cross with one coin common to both rows. there are 6 coins total. Let me try to do a diagram.
0
000
0
0
Move one coin and make 2 rows with 4 coins in each row. If you've seen it before let others who have not seen it puzzle over it awhile.
Here's a solution that uses each of the letters seven times with no pair appearing in more than one group.
It's presented in a logical order with all the permutations of A appearing first, then the remaining permutations of B, and so on. So in this solution, the triplet DEF is absent.
ABC ADE AFG AHI AJK
ALM ANO BDF BEG BHJ
BIK BLN BMO CDG CEF
CHK CIJ CLO CMN DHL
DIM DJN DKO EHM EIL
EJO EKN FHN FIO FJL
FKM GHO GIN GJM GKL
The triplet DEF would not be allowed as D and F are together in the middle of the second row.
Also it does not strike me that this is a particularly good demonstration of Lessans mathematical prowess, just a clever trickster.
Here's a solution that uses each of the letters seven times with no pair appearing in more than one group.
It's presented in a logical order with all the permutations of A appearing first, then the remaining permutations of B, and so on. So in this solution, the triplet DEF is absent.
ABC ADE AFG AHI AJK
ALM ANO BDF BEG BHJ
BIK BLN BMO CDG CEF
CHK CIJ CLO CMN DHL
DIM DJN DKO EHM EIL
EJO EKN FHN FIO FJL
FKM GHO GIN GJM GKL
The triplet DEF would not be allowed as D and F are together in the middle of the second row.
Which is why he didn't use it, I believe
Cepitmus' solution may not exactly match Lessans, but it meets the terms of the puzzle as stated
I would not be surprised that Lessans did have a solution, and given the wording with which the puzzle is presented, it might be a con-artists trick question. Much like this little puzzle,
Start with 2 rows of coins one row of 4 and the other row of 3 arranged like a cross with one coin common to both rows. there are 6 coins total. Let me try to do a diagram.
0
000
0
0
Move one coin and make 2 rows with 4 coins in each row. If you've seen it before let others who have not seen it puzzle over it awhile.
Diagram isn't quite right but it will still work.
add a coin to the horizontal row. Adding a coin is not forbidden in the puzzle wording you listed here
How do you think the Hubble receives and records images? I mean, if cameras/telescopes etc. have to focus on "what is actually there"?
What is the Hubble focusing on if not the images that are emitting said light?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How do you explain the Deep Field photograph?
The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF) is an image of a small region of space in the constellation Fornax, composited from Hubble Space Telescope data accumulated over a period from September 24, 2003, through to January 16, 2004. It is the deepest image of the universe ever taken,[1] looking back approximately 13 billion years (between 400 and 800 million years after the Big Bang), and it will be used to search for galaxies that existed at that time. The HUDF image was taken in a section of the sky with a low density of bright stars in the near-field, allowing much better viewing of dimmer, more distant objects. The image contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies. In August and September 2009, the Hubble's Deep Field was expanded using the infrared channel of the recently attached Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3). When combined with existing HUDF data, astronomers were able to identify a new list of potentially very distant galaxies.[2]
Quote:
Please explain where this is relevant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The looking back approximately 13 billion years part is relevant to your repeated claims that neither our eyes, nor our instruments see the past. The fact that the image was made from decoding photons gathered over 10 days is relevant to your repeated claims that cameras don't detect actual light.
I am not disputing that Hubble is decoding photons that have been emitted from these stars, and that these photons have traveled a finite distance. The question remains: Are these stars (the gases --- the hydrogen and helium and other elements that make up these constellation of stars) seen in real time or are they part of the distant past? If efferent vision is true, the Hubble telescope has been able to send clear pictures back to Earth because it has reached this section of the sky (without a lot of interference from other stars) due to its relative proximity and magnification potential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Do you understand how a charge coupled devise works?
This is what I found, but you'll have to explain where this is relevant.
A charge-coupled device (CCD) is a device for the movement of electrical charge, usually from within the device to an area where the charge can be manipulated, for example conversion into a digital value. This is achieved by "shifting" the signals between stages within the device one at a time. CCDs move charge between capacitive bins in the device, with the shift allowing for the transfer of charge between bins.
The CCD is a major technology for digital imaging. In a CCD image sensor, reverse-biased p–n junctions (essentially photodiodes) are used to absorb photons and produce charges representing sensed pixels; the CCD is used to read out these charges. Although CCDs are not the only technology to allow for light detection, CCD image sensors are widely used in professional, medical, and scientific applications where high-quality image data is required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Again, relevant to your claims about how you think cameras and other instruments work. See Bolded
The CCD is the light detector/decoder on the Hubble.
So, what was Hubble's CCD doing, do you think, if not detecting and decoding billions year old light?
It is doing exactly what a CCD does. It is able to convert photons into a digital value, but where did the photons come from? They came from a light source, which is in view of the lens. Photons didn't arrive at the speed of light and strike the lens without the source of that light being within the view of the Hubble (I am speaking in terms of efferent vision so please don't get confused). There has to be an image that is emitting those photons. Once the photons are absorbed, they can be manipulated. This doesn't prove that those images are from the past.
I never said it did, although in all cases where a photograph is taken, the object or image of that photograph is present (the photograph is not taken from detecting light alone), even if the image is not completely in view such as the case when we see the image in a mirror.
But detecting light is all cameras do! It is how we designed and built them!
Exactly. They are light detectors. That's why exposure time is factor in photography. The deep field image from Hubble? It took 10 days for the CCD to detect all that light.
It was aimed at a seemingly empty part of space...we couldn't see anything there even with our most powerful telescopes. In fact, almost everyone assumed it was a total waste of 10 days of Hubble time, that it would return a picture of nothing...most everyone was astoundingly and happily wrong in their assumptions.
Again, this boils down to whether the stars were large enough, close enough, or bright enough (however faint) for the Hubble to take pictures, or whether the light just happened to arrive over many light years away within that 10 day period.
I don't remember seeing this one before. Here's my guess (but don't look if you want to carry on working it out for yourself).
If you move the lowest coin so it is resting on top of the one in the centre of the +, then you have two rows of four coins. They are only rows with three positions, but the centre position is occupied by two coins at once.
If the common TV does not change her mind (which emits only light - there is no object to be seen except for a tv screen) then mere scientific experiments are not going to bother her much.
She is staring at clear evidence that the eyes detect light and translate this into an image every day in order to keep denying that this is what is happening!
What else does your computer monitor do, except for emit light of different colors?
A digital image is made up of many pixels. Each pixel has a color. When the pixels are arranged next to each other, the resulting image looks like something.
In digital imaging, a pixel, or pel[1], (picture element[2]) is a single point in a raster image, or the smallest addressable screen element in a display device; it is the smallest unit of picture that can be represented or controlled. Each pixel has its own address. The address of a pixel corresponds to its coordinates. Pixels are normally arranged in a two-dimensional grid, and are often represented using dots or squares. Each pixel is a sample of an original image; more samples typically provide more accurate representations of the original. The intensity of each pixel is variable. In color image systems, a color is typically represented by three or four component intensities such as red, green, and blue, or cyan, magenta, yellow, and black.
Even though pixels are digital representations, we can see these configurations of words and pictures due to how the pixels are arranged. Reflected light allows us to see these representations in real time.
Calling me names is very immature Lone. I'm surprised that a teacher of science could go that low.
Well, it's a good thing that I didn't call you names then, isn't it?
I merely pointed out that there are a number of possible explanations for your peculiar behavior. One is that you're consciously lying. That's a distinct possibility, but it's not the explanation that I favor, personally. I think that the "religious fundamentalist" explanation works better.
That's what it might appear to you because you can't believe I am not conceding. There is no absolute proof that the eyes are afferent (even with all of the studies done so far); only circumstantial evidence which could very well be wrong. And do you actually think that calling my behavior "peculiar" is objective, or could it be that it is YOU who is peculiar for seeing me this way?
Even if she's correct, and dogs can't recognize their master by facial features and all those tests are totally wrong, she hasn't explained why differences between human and dog facial recognition abilities are due to efferent sight, rather than differences in brain processes.
You're right to ask this question due to the fact that the reason dogs cannot recognize facial features even though there should be nothing stopping them from this recognition if the photons are going directly into the dogs' eyes, has to do with language acquisition.
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
