A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is babies are not able to focus properly because they need stimulation in order for the brain to focus the eyes. It is not due to weak ciliary muscles. And yes, there is a misconception that dogs can recognize their owners through sight alone. And yet their brains can easily process what they are smelling, hearing, tasting, and feeling. But it is true that part of our ability to recognize objects is because of language.

As far as stimulating the optical nerve resulting in seeing (visual information such as patterns and shadows does not indicate true sight) is yet to be proven, so it is a bunch of hooplah at this point. You said it, not me.

Peacegirl, you are completely ignoring the baby mimics. Do they smell when their parents stick their tongues out? Or do they hear it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

I believe you. It's just surprising to me that in all that time there is no real proof that the eyes are afferent. I know you don't use the word "proof" very often, but that is what science aims for or else we would still believe that the earth could be flat.

Lessans never talked about transduction. He only said that light strikes the optic nerve.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

That sounds very logical but I believe it's not that clear cut, hence there is room for another explanation. I wish I was able to give you an alternative model to explain the mechanism behind efferent vision, but that's for scientists to figure out after more empirical studies show support for this claim.

[davidm]

What a dishonest ditz. And the concept of "proof" as it applies differently to math from science has also repeatedly been explained to her, and she breezily ignores what was explained and goes on making the same dumb dishonest statements.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl, you are completely ignoring the baby mimics. Do they smell when their parents stick their tongues out? Or do they hear it?

Look, there has been corroborating evidence that babies begin to focus their eyes at a few months old. Maybe some infants can see contrast enough to mimic. This doesn't change anything.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This actually works out but it leaves out DEF. So this is not the right answer. You can't just leave out three letters and call it a day.

Oops, it looks like Lessans didn't solve his own puzzle. If his list has BDF and DEF then the DF pair appears twice.

But let me guess, Lessans list doesn't have BDF or the puzzle has morphed yet again, but I guess we are just gonna have to take your word for it peacegirl.

Too bad you won't take our word for anything.

[thedoc]

To be successful in life it is said that a girl needs to learn to play 3 things, Tennis, Golf, and Dumb. Peacegirl has certainly mastered the 3rd.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

Diagram isn't quite right but it will still work.

Are you going to give us the answer? Never mind, I see that it was answered.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look, there has been corroborating evidence that babies begin to focus their eyes at a few months old. Maybe some infants can see contrast enough to mimic. This doesn't change anything.

Dang peacegirl, you can go on youtube and find infants doing it that are just hours old.

Why do we have to take your word for it but you ignore what we tell you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

No it does not LadyShea.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you going to give us the answer?

I think you should read it again since you obviously don't understand it. Look it over again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Dang peacegirl, you can go on youtube and find infants doing it that are just hours old.

Why do we have to take your word for it but you ignore what we tell you?

I'm not ignoring anything. If you look at a newborn's eyes they are not focused. That is not even disputed. As far as mimicing with eyes that aren't focused, I don't know how they do it if that's what they are actually doing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think you should read it again since you obviously don't understand it. Look it over again.

I saw the answer already but I'm too tired to look it over. Tomorrow I will.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I saw the answer already but I'm too tired to look it over. Tomorrow I will.

If you saw the answer, and that I said it was correct, Why are you asking for the answer? If you saw it, which post was it in?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not ignoring anything. If you look at a newborn's eyes they are not focused. That is not even disputed. As far as mimicing with eyes that aren't focused, I don't know how they do it if that's what they are actually doing.

Peacegirl, I've told you this before. The eye has a lens. It happens to be a flexible lens. We flex muscles in our eye to change the focal length. But if the muscle is not working the lens still has a focal length. Bring an object to the right distance for that focal length and an image will form.

It so happens that infants can't focus but if you place your face close to their face you will be in focus. However they will not be able to focus on things across the room. That is why in the videos of mimicking infants the faces are close to each other.

But even if you discount everything I've told you here, you can't say that infants can't see something. All you can say is that you and Lessans can't explain it.

And at a minimum you need to stop using infants as some kind of proof for your "efferent vision" idea because it doesn't fit.

So lets see how sincere you are about your open mindedness.

You certainly can't demand from us what you are not willing to do yourself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

So lets see how sincere you are about your open mindedness.

You certainly can't demand from us what you are not willing to do yourself.

Interesting that you say that, as she kept insisting that we should read, the book, claiming that because we disagree we had not read it, but she will not read any of the material that is posted or linked, to educate her.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans never talked about transduction. He only said that light strikes the optic nerve.

You do know that the optic nerve lies behind the darkly-pigmented, light-absorbing chorion, do you not?

In other words, no, light does not strike the optic nerve in any meaningful sense. I've dissected eyes -- including human eyes -- and I can tell you from personal experience that the chorion is quite opaque.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You do know that the optic nerve lies behind the darkly-pigmented, light-absorbing chorion, do you not?

I've dissected eyes -- including human eyes -- and I can tell you from personal experience that the chorion is quite opaque.

Now that doesn't make any sense at all, if the chorion is opaque how can the brain look through the eye to see the objects it's looking at. This will never do, it contradicts Lessans.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Interesting that you say that, as she kept insisting that we should read, the book, claiming that because we disagree we had not read it, but she will not read any of the material that is posted or linked, to educate her.

Well who knows, maybe that human equation she keeps saying Lessans has figured out includes the most basic aspect of all equations, that both sides balance. Which is the essence of fairness. So lets see if peacegirl can balance the open mind equation. Lets see if she can be as open minded as she expects us to be. If she can then maybe Lessans has a few things to teach the world.

But it will mean that she will have to accept the possibility that Lessans could be wrong since she is expecting us to consider that what we know is wrong.

But after over 10,000 posts I am not willing to bet on much of anything changing. This thread is just an unwinnable tug of war.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Now that doesn't make any sense at all, if the chorion is opaque how can the brain look through the eye to see the objects it's looking at. This will never do, it contradicts Lessans.

I doubt it. Since Lessans makes no mention of exactly how the brain pulls of it's "efferent" use of the eyes I'm sure the actual facts just do not matter.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I doubt it. Since Lessans makes no mention of exactly how the brain pulls of it's "efferent" use of the eyes I'm sure the actual facts just do not matter.

Good point, that seems to be a common theme of Peasegirls posts. Reality and actual science must take a back seat to Lessans book.

[thedoc]

Did anyone notice my small celebration of the belated 400 page party, or does everyone have me on ignore?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Good point, that seems to be a common theme of Peasegirls posts. Reality and actual science must take a back seat to Lessans book.

Yes, there is a fundie quality to it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Yes, there is a fundie quality to it.

And usually that is cute to watch, but after 400+ pages it gets a bit tiresome.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And usually that is cute to watch, but after 400+ pages it gets a bit tiresome.

Yes, but I gotta say that peacegirl has been a very good sport about it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

One day he asked me, "Michael, are you my friend?" I replied, "Of course I am." He smiled and thanked me, and indeed, he looked happier in that moment than I'd ever seen him. He told me that I was his only friend.

I had been lying. Truthfully, I could barely stand to spend time with him, but I felt sorry for him because he was so obviously lonely. That is why I spent time with him, not because I considered him a friend.

Michael, you were not lying when you said you were his friend. Being a friend to someone is not about how you feel about that person. It is about how you treat that person. You treated him as a friend would. Therefore, you were his friend.