A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

She will quote the relevant passages of the book, and claim I didn't really read the chapter on the 2-sided equation. Maybe she'll skip posting from the book and just go straight to blaming me for not understanding Lessans' genius.

OH MY GOD, I am not blaming you specious, I am just telling you that you don't understand this knowledge. How in the world can I win if you, and everyone else, keeps coming back with the same refrain. IT'S YOU THAT DOESN'T GET IT BECAUSE I READ THE BOOK. What am I supposed to do?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not an answer; that's an opinion specious. Give your reasons at the very least. If you can't, you are just reacting, and I will need to move on.

It has been SHOWN to be wrong for 151 pages, you idiot!

The Lone Ranger showed EXACTLY why it was wrong in the essay THAT YOU DID NOT READ! Now you want someone to give you reaons. But the reasons HAVE been given -- repeatedly! You ignore them; you even refuse to read them!

You claim we are acting as "gatekeepers of the truth." This is yet another example of you projecting your own shortcomings onto others. In fact, it is YOU who is posing as the "gatekeeper of truth," in direct contravention to all known facts, theories, and well-settled science.

Hey, peacegirl, how is it possible to see the sun when God turns it on at noon immediately, but not see one's neighbor for eight minutes?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A rainbow, a star, the sun, etc. is close enough to be seen even though there is "no object".

If I may point out another falacy here, with a star and the sun there are deffinately 'objects' to be seen, we just can't reach put and touch them. With a rainbow, if you are standing directly under the source of the rainbow, you may not see it but you will 'get wet'. A rainbow is sunlight refracted through raindrops, and raindrops (water) can be considered as an 'object'. Just to be clear.

[LadyShea]

I don't think it's funny because you were putting Lessans in a very unfavorable light by comparing him to a religious fanatic. Lessans absolutist words are absolute because they are undeniable. This guys words are not. They are religious in nature without one bit of proof behind them. It was a cheap shot LadyShea.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If I may point out another falacy here, with a star and the sun there are deffinately 'objects' to be seen, we just can't reach put and touch them. With a rainbow, if you are standing directly under the source of the rainbow, you may not see it but you will 'get wet'. A rainbow is sunlight refracted through raindrops, and raindrops (water) can be considered as an 'object'. Just to be clear.

Raindrops forming the rainbow are not "large enough or close enough" to be seen by efferent vision. Same with the stars and the sun. The only thing to be seen is the light from them. If there was no visible light being emitted by stars (say they only emitted x-rays and UV rays and no visible spectrum), we wouldn't see the balls of hot gas with our eyes, directly.

I am pointing out the logical conclusions to her assertions of efferent vision. She still can't explain how we see an image when all that is "there to be seen" is light. Her explanations don't even make sense within her own hypothesis.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Raindrops forming the rainbow are not "large enough or close enough" to be seen by efferent vision. Same with the stars and the sun. The only thing to be seen is the light from them. If there was no visible light being emitted by stars (say they only emitted x-rays and UV rays and no visible spectrum), we wouldn't see the balls of hot gas with our eyes, directly.

I am pointing out the logical conclusions to her assertions of efferent vision. She still can't explain how we see an image when all that is "there to be seen" is light. Her explanations don't even make sense within her own hypothesis.

I was only pointing out peacegirls contradiction in stating that there is 'no object' when in fact there are objects. I was not considering if they were close or not.

However it would be correct to say that stars and the raindrops are too far away and too small to see if it were not for the light that they emit.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

On MSN today a video of a dog trying to play fetch with a bronze statue of a man

I wounder why the dog would think that a statue of a man sitting on a park bench would pick up a stick, throw it and play fetch with him.

What was the Dog seeing?

If someone finds the video on 'YouTube' please post it here.

That didn't take long,

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is pure light visible as a distinct image in efferent vision? Do the photons arrange themselves in place into the image for your brain to look at?

The only part of the sun that is at all visible is the visible light portion of it's radiation. Without the light there would be no object to see. If the light, the only visible part of the sun, has to travel to Earth, and is not carrying any information, how can it be seen instantly without waiting for the light to arrive?

BECAUSE LIGHT IS A CONDITION (OR MEDIUM) OF SIGHT. IT DOES NOT CARRY ANY SIGNALS TO BE CONVERTED INTO THE OBJECT (OR IMAGE). I AM LOSING HOPE THAT ANY OF YOU WILL EVER UNDERSTAND WHAT LESSANS WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That didn't take long,

That's not just any man, that statue is alan turing.

So that video is extra badass.

[LadyShea]

Those statues are incredibly detailed and lifelike...they had them all over my neighborhood in Vegas, including piles of bronze shirts, socks, and shoes at a fountain bronze boys are playing in.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BECAUSE LIGHT IS A CONDITION (OR MEDIUM) OF SIGHT. IT DOES NOT CARRY ANY SIGNALS TO BE CONVERTED INTO THE OBJECT (OR IMAGE). I AM LOSING HOPE THAT ANY OF YOU WILL EVER UNDERSTAND WHAT LESSANS WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN.

I understand perfectly. You are the one that's not understanding the necessary conclusions that come from it.

Where does the image of a rainbow (the characteristic color banding and arch shape), or asterism in a gemstone (radiating bands of light), form? Do the light photons arrange themselves in patterns so you can look at them directly? There is nothing "there to be seen", peacegirl. You say we can see lightwaves, but not how lightwaves alone can form different images under different circumstances if they are not being converted somewhere. If not the brain then where?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I AM LOSING HOPE THAT ANY OF YOU WILL EVER UNDERSTAND WHAT LESSANS WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN.

Actually most, if not all, here do understand what Lessans was trying to explain. What those on this forum are saying, and what you seem incapable of understanding, is that what Lessans was saying is wrong. His theory of sight is wrong, and has been demonstrated so with repeated tests, experiments, observations, and this has all been repeatedly verified. The only person who questions the existing undeniable knowledge about vision is you, peasegirl, and that is because you do not understand the existing knowledge of vision, and refuse to even attempt to educate yourself on the knowledge you disagree with, and I believe there is a term for that.

Others on this forum are being kind when they call it 'willful ignorance'.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, the "opinion" of a biologist who has spent literally decades studying the anatomy and physiology of the eye isn't relevant to discussions on how we see?

Golly.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

OH MY GOD, I am not blaming you specious, I am just telling you that you don't understand this knowledge. How in the world can I win if you, and everyone else, keeps coming back with the same refrain. IT'S YOU THAT DOESN'T GET IT BECAUSE I READ THE BOOK. What am I supposed to do?

I'm OK if you give up and go away. I've read the first 2 chapters of this book, I read the parts on sight, and I remain uninterested in Lessans ideas - although I might pick up other parts for the laughs. I'm really tempted to read up on sex, love and "goils"... You can leave me locked behind the door marked "Dave Has an Unhealthy Fascination with Crap."

Alternatively, you've been given all sorts of wonderful ideas in this thread to improve your knowledge and/or improve your presentation. It would be lovely if you didn't waste so much effort in responding to people - especially since you've unsatisfactorily answered the same questions multiple times.

Maybe your time would be better spend understanding the arguments other people are making and figuring out how best to respond. It's clear to me that you don't understand the point of half the questions posed to you, or that you don't understand why your responses are considered nonsensical, dismissive, or contradictory.

[Vivisectus]

All I can say at this point is that there is a major disconnect in our communication.

This is, indeed, undeniable.

Obviously, information is entering the brain but that doesn't explain how.

I have a really good explanation how - one that works and is easily testable.

The medium is light, because without light we cannot see, and therefore we cannot use the information that sight would give us.

Indeed. The most elegant explanation for that it because it is light we detect.

He explains how that information is gathered by how the brain works.

He explains nothing - he just asserts that it is so. You cannot explain how the brain does this amazing trick of direct observation either.

The only difference is that light is not turning into a signal in the optic nerve that can be decoded into an image. We use the light to actually see reality.

Do you really still do not understand that this means magic? If not light, then what do we detect? What bridges the gap between us and the object we are looking at? Something must actually do that. And why do we need light, if we do not detect it? Don't say "because it is a condition" - explain how light enables this direct observation by the brain.

We still get the same information but in a more direct way because the brain is able to see the object and record what it sees in memory, so that it can be retrieved and used to formulate new ideas. I will say this over and over and over and over until you finally get it.

The problem is not my understanding of what you are saying. It is your failure to understand that it is not possible. We agree that information appears in the brain. Information cannot come out of nothing - something must make contact with the brain to impart that information. Light hitting the retina and creating impulses that the brain receives through the optic nerve has something - light, initially - travelling from the object to the brain.

Your idea has information being transported into the brain by... what? By nothing? That is simply not possible - it goes against the most basic laws of physics.

And when you think about it, it still means sight if afferent. Information goes in. We do not project something that is already in the brain outward.

On top of that things like mirrors, glasses, microscopes, rainbows and monitors are not explained in your model, but is explained by the real model. Take mirrors: All they emit is light. There is no object behind the mirror - there is just light being reflected. You could assume we directly observe that light - but that does not explain the image. Since this image is made up of nothing but light, the image tells us that it is light that is being detected, not what is really there. Because what is really there is a flat piece of glass.

But you already KNOW this Peacegirl. It has been pointed out to you again and again, endlessly - but you just cannot make yourself admit that this idea was an error.

Why is that such a big deal? It does not even seriously undermine the rest of his ideas. Why can't he have been wrong about this particular detail? If you cannot even reconsider something that has been proven to be a mistake in a dozen different ways, does that not say something about your attitude to this book?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

She will quote the relevant passages of the book, and claim I didn't really read the chapter on the 2-sided equation. Maybe she'll skip posting from the book and just go straight to blaming me for not understanding Lessans' genius.

Specious, I'm not going to quote anything because then I will be blamed for copying and pasting, or for some other reason. I will say it straight out. You don't understand the two-sided equation, so stop faking it. If you did, you would be able to explain it in your own words, but you can't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is pure light visible as a distinct image in efferent vision? Do the photons arrange themselves in place into the image for your brain to look at?

No, because the photons are already arranged where they can be seen. It's no different than afferent vision. How would the photons arrange themselves in place into the image for your brain to interpret? Same thing.
[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an image is not large enough to be seen, and one is not using a telescope to magnify the image, then we can't see it because the image is not traveling through space and time to reach us on the waves of light. The lightwaves exist, but only when the brain is looking directly at the object from which the light is being reflected.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only part of the sun that is at all visible is the visible light portion of it's radiation. Without the light there would be no object to see. If the light, the only visible part of the sun, has to travel to Earth, and is not carrying any information, how can it be seen instantly without waiting for the light to arrive?

You are just repeating yourself. You are setting up a premise that if the light, the only visible part of the sun, has to travel to Earth and is not carrying any information, it cannot be seen instantly without the light arriving first.

You made an assumption that because the light is carrying information, and the light hasn't arrived, we would not be able to receive the information. But if the premise is false; that the visible part of the sun is carrying information, it is only necessary to prove that efferent vision is true, and we can't do that unless we can see the possibility that it could be true. But how can we consider the possibility that it could be true when we can't even understand what Lessans means by "light is a condition of sight"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As far as I can tell, this is merely completely unsupported - IE it is something we are told is true, but no evidence or compelling reason to believe it is provided. Apparently none is needed because it is an "astute observation".

My own observation that there is no need to think that justification is an absolute requirement for a harmful act, or that blame is a condition for justification, does not hold as much water, possibly because it is not astute enough. I cannot argue with this, as all levels of astuteness are decided by Pecegirl and there is no appeal.

I welcome your appeal, but let it be fair. You stated your refutation and your mind was made up 100 pages ago. You didn't give me a chance to discuss why your refutation is without any substance even though you thought that all this book required was a quick once over and you could so easily disprove what took a man 30 years of study, observation, and finally putting his observations into words. This is pure folly.

[LadyShea]

You are repeating yourself, peacegirl, because you do not understand how Lessans model works either.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Since this image is made up of nothing but light, the image tells us that it is light that is being detected, not what is really there. Because what is really there is a flat piece of glass.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's no different than afferent vision. How would the photons arrange themselves in place into the image for your brain to interpret? Same thing.

The photons do not need to "arrange themselves" in afferent vision, because the images are created in the brain.

Efferent vision, in which there is no information carried by light, cannot explain why pure light can create differing images. In Lessans model, why is some light seen as a rainbow, and some light seen as a mirror reflection, and some light seen as words on a monitor, when there is no information in the light to account for these variations in appearance?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are setting up a premise that if the light, the only visible part of the sun, has to travel to Earth and is not carrying any information, it cannot be seen instantly without the light arriving first.

I am not setting up a premise, I am following Lessan's premise to it's logical conclusion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"light is a condition of sight"

How is light a "condition" of seeing light? How can light be both the seen object and the necessary condition for seeing it?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't understand the two-sided equation, so stop faking it. If you did, you would be able to explain it in your own words, but you can't.

peacegirl, you don't understand the two-sided equation, so stop faking it. If you did, you would be able to explain it in your own words. The fact that you haven't done so establishes that you can't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is pure folly.

Sokath, his eyes opened!

[LadyShea]

even though you thought that all this book required was a quick once over and you could so easily disprove what took a man 30 years of study, observation, and finally putting his observations into words.

And what of The Lone Rangers decades of study, experimentation, and observation? Why is it acceptable for you to throw out his years of accumulated knowledge, that he painstakingly put into words, without even looking at it?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Specious, I'm not going to quote anything because then I will be blamed for copying and pasting, or for some other reason. I will say it straight out. You don't understand the two-sided equation, so stop faking it. If you did, you would be able to explain it in your own words, but you can't.

Irony.
A revolution in thought - Page 151 - Freethought Forum

However, I think I nailed it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just it; it's not trivial to a young adult. It might be trivial to you because you're all grown up and it can take a back seat.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's trivial to some young adults, especially those whose parents are all grown up and raise them to understand the triviality.

You, on the other hand, do not seem to have outgrown it. Appearances are very important to you. Why is that?

LadyShea, please don't make this my problem, as if I have a psychological issue. This is a societal problem that cannot easily be solved, even when parents reassure their children that it's a triviality, which contradicts the reality that children face every day. The words that do this conditioning are already ingrained in our children's psyche from a very early age.

I have seen young girls very hurt by these words. Maybe you haven't. The pressure is immense to live up to a particular brand of beauty, even if it's to avoid being branded ugly. If you don't see it this way, maybe you live in a different world than me, but I see it getting worse and worse, and this does wear on a child's self-esteem unless he can find other things to compensate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's a societal and parental problem, not a vocabulary problem. And, again, it's not universal. You see it more, and se it as a way bigger problem than I do, because you are looking for it, you are more sensitive to it. Is that because of your personal experiences, or because of Lessans teachings?

That's just the point. It is a vocabulary problem because that is how children get conditioned, through vocabulary, and it won't stop until there is proof that these words do not symbolize anything real. People are not beautiful or ugly, just different. Now you tell someone that in our society, and they will say that it is impossible to deny that beautiful and ugly people exist. They see this with their very eyes.

[LadyShea]

It is a vocabulary problem because that is how children get conditioned, through vocabulary, and it won't stop until there is proof that these words do not symbolize anything real. People are not beautiful or ugly, just different. Now you tell someone that in our society, and they will say that it is impossible to deny that beautiful and ugly people exist. They see this with their very eyes.

So sayeth the Lord Lessans. You are a broken record.

The reality is that people see other people, then their brain -using their unique neurological make up- identifies human, female/male, adult/child/elder/infant etc. then goes on to apply various subjective/relative labels such as: beautiful, ugly, plain, cute, pretty, odd, short, skinny, fat, attractive, familiar, strange, X ethnicity, sexy etc. etc. and maybe attaches some emotions in there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your answer is based on a free will environment, so, of course, it seems antithetical to what we see everyday. But there is going to be a revolutionary shift due to the knowledge that man's will is not free. Why can't you keep an open mind specious until the investigation is over?

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

The response, "That is simply not true" was to indicate that this is not the first relevant question after 150 pages. There has been plenty of relevant questions, but you have managed to ignore a good portion of them, or simply accused them of not reading/understanding the text.

Firstly, it was virtually impossible to have a conversation in here with every other post being a joke, an attack, or a rant against me. Now that those individuals are on ignore, I can have a normal conversation. Secondly, if I said to people they don't understand something, you're going to have to trust me [for the time being] that they don't understand something. Because people have not studied the text, I am handicapped in that this conversation is very one-sided. So many things have been taken out of context, or misunderstood. How can anyone expect to understand something of this import without carefully reading, studying, and analyzing the book? They did nothing of the sort because they don't believe he has anything of value.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I have my own ideas about free will, but I simply think that a person understanding they're blameless is still a person with the same survival needs and instincts. Finite amounts of resources creates conflict. I don't see how removing blame keeps you from killing/hurting me when I have food and you don't.

I am in agreement 100%. This is the law of self-preservation. Please read the following because this is the first form of the first blow that must be removed before these principles will work:

“Something puzzles me very much because it seems under certain
conditions this principle can have no effect. If man is compelled to
move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and the conditions of the
environment cause him as a solution to his particular problem to
prefer the lesser of two evils, how is it possible to remove the evil when
his choice, no matter what he selects, is still evil? Self-preservation
is the first law of nature and if he can’t satisfy his needs without
hurting others, the knowledge that they will never blame him for this
hurt to them can never prevent him from moving in this direction
because he has no choice.”

“You are 100% correct because he is already being hurt by the
environment and under such conditions he is justified to retaliate.
You will understand this better as we continue.”

“This is the only thing that had me puzzled; otherwise, your
reasoning is flawless.”

“It is important to understand that in order to solve a problem,
even with our basic principle, we must know what we are faced with
and in the economic world there are three aspects of hurt. The first
is not being able to fulfill our basic needs. The second is the inability
to maintain the standard of living that was developed. And the last is
to be denied an opportunity, if desired, to improve one’s standard of
living.”

Before I demonstrate how this hurt in the economic world is
removed, it is necessary to remind you of this key fact: Man’s will is
not free because he never has a choice, as with aging, and then it is
obvious that he is under the normal compulsion of living regardless of
what his particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a
choice and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is
compelled, by his very nature, to prefer the one that gives him greater
satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two
goods, or a good over an evil.

The natural law implicit in the
two-sided equation cannot prevent man from finding greater
satisfaction in hurting others when not to do this makes matters
worse for himself as would be the case if he were forced, beyond his
control, to lose his source of income and be placed in a position where
he could not meet his living expenses or acquire the necessaries of life.
Just the possibility that this could happen (this pervasive insecurity)
activates and justifies the law of self-preservation to lie, cheat, steal,
and even kill if there is no other way to get the money he needs or
might need for survival. It is also important to realize that when man
is compelled to give up his desire to hurt others because he knows
there will be no blame he is not choosing the greater of two goods or
the lesser of two evils, but a good over an evil.

But if by not hurting
others he makes matters worse for himself, then he is compelled to
prefer the lesser of two evils and this is what happens where the first
two aspects of hurt are concerned. Consequently, if we find ourselves
unable to get what we need then we are compelled to blame and even
hurt those who have it. An example of this occurs when employees
who find their income falling short of the mark because of rising
prices, blame their employer for having too much money and strike to
take some of it away. The employer, in turn, who has discovered that
the strike has lowered his income; and the government, finding itself
unable to meet its needs under the present tax structure, blame the
people for having too much money and decide to take some of it away
by increasing prices and taxes.

The people, falling below their needs
because of this increase, blame the government and anybody else they
can cheat to get back what they lost. The manufacturers, wholesalers
and retailers are compelled to lay off their surplus employees when
consumption slows down and to prevent this, since there is no way the
United States can consume all it produces (I am using the United
States as an example since I live here, but this applies to any country
that produces more than it consumes), the government is forced to do
everything humanly possible to keep its foreign markets open and
reduce unnecessary competition, otherwise a recession and perhaps
depression could result.

It is true that war keeps millions of people
employed, reduces the already overcrowded earth and the chances of
a depression, so what is the better choice? Everywhere we look man
is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils, and under these
conditions our basic principle can have no effect. Therefore, to solve
our problem since this is the kind of situation that exists in the
economic world, it is necessary to remove the first blow.

To clarify
this, if A is compelled to hurt B because the alternative of not doing
this is still worse, then A has no choice but to hurt B, as when the
unions strike, when prices and taxes are increased, when lay-offs
occur, when government prefers war, etc. But if there is no possibility
for A to make matters worse for himself by not hurting B, then this
aspect of justification has been removed and it then becomes possible
to prevent man from desiring to hurt others when he knows there will
be no blame which compels him, beyond his control, to choose a good
(not to hurt anybody) over an evil (to do so). Now the question arises
at this point, “How can we create an environment that would remove
the conditions which make it necessary to select the lesser of two evils
as a solution to our problems?