A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's exactly what you asked for. That it is psychological doesn't mean it's any less real. It just means he wasn't literally talking about words shooting out of people's eyeballs. If you think my analysis is incorrect, then please provide your analysis. Please explain his metaphors of photographing objects and the projecting words onto substances in literal non-figurative terms. Explain how, in your opinion, this requires efferent vision. I've already explained to you why it doesn't.

His terms were not figurative. If you can't understand what he meant, then just ask me for clarification instead of telling me he was wrong. Please read this and tell me where it's psychological?

p. 123 At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste,
touch and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a
negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this.
When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying
sound or smell he cannot identify because no photograph was taken.
A dog identifies predominantly through his sense of sound and smell
and what he sees is in relation to these sense experiences, just as we
identify most of the differences that exist through words and names.
If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily
disconnected — in man’s case the words or names, and in the dog’s
case the sounds and smells — both have a case of amnesia. This gives
conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with
his eyes. As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking
any person who should open the fence at night were to have two
senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, he would actually
have amnesia and even though he saw with his eyes his master come
through the gate he would have no way of recognizing him and would
attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations
that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early
age.

The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts
as a tape recorder through our ears and the other four senses, and a
camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as
a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded,
they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects
held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since
the eyes are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in
front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of
relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world
and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses,
man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and
if words correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual
differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for
those who do not know the words. To understand this better let us
observe my granddaughter learning words.

<snip>

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees
various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of
differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in preference
to another, or may prefer to play with one toy over another, but in so
far as she is concerned all she sees are a bunch of objects. However,
as her eyes are focused on one of our canine friends I shall repeat the
word ‘dog’ rapidly in her ear. When she turns away I stop. This will
be continued until she looks for him when hearing the word which
indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object has
been established and a photograph taken. Soon this relation is
formed which makes her conscious of a particular difference that exists
in the external world.

As she learns more and more words such as cat,
horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of these
differences which no one can deny because they are seen through
words or slides that circumscribe accurately these various bits of
substance. This is exactly how we learn words only I am speeding up
the process. Before long she learns house, tree, car, chair, door,
kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth, eyes, hair, girl,
boy, and so on. Until she learns the word cat she could very easily
point to a dog when hearing that word because a negative of the
difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox cannot be
differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the difference has been
developed. She also learns the names of individuals: Mommy,
Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan, Justin, Shoshana, Adam,
Jennifer, Meredith, etc. My granddaughter can identify her mother
from hundreds and hundreds of photographs because the difference is
a negative that not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not.

In other words, as she learns these names and words her brain takes a
picture of the objects symbolized and when she sees these differences
again she projects the word or name, but the brain will not take any
picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these differences
that exist in the external world which are not identifiable through
taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable only because they are
related to words, names or slides that we project for recognition. If we
would lose certain names or words we would have amnesia because
when we see these ordinarily familiar differences we are unable to
project the words or names necessary for recognition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Yes, you did. You said that photons that are not absorbed by the object appear at the retina instantly.

The nonabsorbed photons are already at the retina if the object is within our optical range and it meets the requirements. The photons are not teleporting. They are constantly streaming but they are revealing the object, so it doesn't matter which photon hits the retina first (red before blue) because they aren't bringing the image (the information) to the brain. I wonder how much longer this discussion is going to go on without one ounce of progress.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His terms were not figurative.

So "[t]he brain . . . acts . . . as a movie projector" is in no way figurative?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, here’s that pesky relativity graphic again.



O is at rest with respect to O’ who is moving in constant uniform motion from left to right. Two lightning bolts strike.

Because O’ is in motion with respect to O, he sees the wavefront of light from the front of the moving frame first. The light from the back must catch up. Since light speed is the same in all frames, the light from the back does not add the velocity of the moving frame.

Meanwhile O sees both flashes simultaneously.

Finally, O’ sees the light from the back sometime later, after first viewing the flash from the front. So O’ judges the flashes to have occurred sequentially, wheres O judges them to have occurred simultaneously.

Of course, this state of affairs is completely impossible if we saw in real time. Nobody would have to wait to see the light according to you! The entire relativistic setup completely depends upon the delayed-time seeing you deny. If we saw in real time, both observers would of necessity agree on when the flashes occurred — either both would say they occurred simultaneously, or both would say they occurred sequentially.

Now I wonder if you can come up with a better answer than hopping up and down and tearing at your hair and waving your arms around and screaming “False!”

No, I’m sure you can’t!

Probably what you’ll do now is either completely ignore this, or go back to denying the fact of special relativity, and run around the Internet like some doofus with your pants on fire googling crackbrained relativity denialists. That’s my prediction.

This does not conflict with real time vision. Your interpretation is wrong just like your interpretation that time actually slows down is wrong. Clocks change, physical processes change, but time is invariant David. We only use the changes in our clocks to derive unchanging time intervals. Savain is right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So "[t]he brain . . . acts . . . as a movie projector" is in no way figurative?

He was comparing the eyes to a movie projector to give people a better understanding, just like people compare the retina to the film in a camera, but his overall explanation was not figurative.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not conflict with real time vision. Your interpretation is wrong just like your interpretation that time actually slows down is wrong. Clocks change, physical processes change, but time is invariant David. We only use the changes in our clocks to derive unchanging time intervals. Savain is right.

Sorry, this is not an answer.

It is perfectly obvious from the graphic that both observers, O and O' must wait for a certain interval of time to see the light. Because they are in different inertial frames, they will disagree on whether the light strikes are simultaneous or sequential. It is perfectly evident to everyone -- yourself included -- that this state of affairs depends entirely on delayed-time seeing. You know it as well as everyone else.

I must say how delightful it is that a simple graphic like this, without a word spoken, demolishes at a stroke Daddy's life's work!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, it is NOT psychological. It is a real conditioning process based on how the eyes work. It would not work otherwise.

Peacegirl, you are claiming that this is not a psychological process, but a physical process, where actual words are projected onto objects and people. If that is true, then it can be observed by a 3rd person who is observing the person seeing an object and the object itself. There should also be video of this happening, so please present a link to the videos that illustrate this.

[davidm]

BTW, peacegirl, the time dilation you deny also falls directly out of the above graphic, as a direct consequence of it. One can easily see this by setting up a light clock. I can give you a link to setting up a light clock for you to duly ignore if you'd like.

[davidm]

The light clock (i.e., time dilation) explained, for peacegirl to duly ignore.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was comparing the eyes to a movie projector to give people a better understanding, just like people compare the retina to the film in a camera, but his overall explanation was not figurative.

Thanks. So your statement that "[h]is terms were not figurative" was incorrect because he did in fact use figurative terms. It's the "overall explanation" that's non-figurative, yes?

[Vivisectus]

I love how the eyes are totally efferent. Except when they take pictures, like a camera - a completely afferent process. Looks like we actually have 2 kinds of sight - afferent and efferent.

And how he continually uses photography terms - literally, creating images with light. Terms like negative, photograph, camera - all of them mean only things you use to make images out of light.

Reading this passage while trying it interpret generously, as if I expect the writer to be reasonably sane, it looks much more like he meant we see afferently as normal, but we "project" values on to those images that we have learned.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The nonabsorbed photons are already at the retina if the object is within our optical range and it meets the requirements.

Well, these well-tested equations say that's bullshit.

I wonder how much longer this discussion is going to go on without one ounce of progress.

Until you understand that it's complete and utter nonsense.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was comparing the eyes to a movie projector to give people a better understanding, just like people compare the retina to the film in a camera, but his overall explanation was not figurative.

Please quote a part of his explanation that was not figurative metaphor.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His terms were not figurative.

So you think he was literally talking about words shooting out of people's eyeballs? He described the processes as being like a camera, a kaleidoscope, a projector, a tape recorder, a telescope, and binoculars. These are ALL figurative metaphors. He never explained what any of them meant in literal terms.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can't understand what he meant, then just ask me for clarification instead of telling me he was wrong.

I fucking DID! I asked you several times for clarification, and you refused! I asked you in the very post you were here replying to! What the fuck? I'll even ask you again: Please explain and clarify what his metaphors meant in literal terms, and explain how and why any of them require a specific mechanism for vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please read this and tell me where it's psychological?

Sure, no problem. Please note that calling it psychological does not mean that it is somehow unreal or imaginary. It just means it concerns psychology, i.e. mental processing, rather than the physiology and physics of sensory perception. And you can show me where any of his explanation is either non-figurative, or is a metaphor representing a specific non-psychological mechanism concerning vision.

"At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a negative..."

Figurative metaphor, as the brain does not really take photographs. And it represents the psychological mechanism of creating and storing archetypes for new concepts.

"But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age."

Figurative metaphor, as the brain does not actually project anything out of a baby's eyes. And it represents the psychological mechanism of using stored archetype-based concepts to shape and influence what we perceive via the senses.

"The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other four senses, and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector."

All figurative metaphor. The brain is not literally any of these things, and all of these processes are psychological by definition. He is talking about how the brain processes and stores information and concepts, and how these concepts shape and influence what we perceive.

"As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain."

Figurative metaphor, as sense experience is not literally shot out of people's eyes at objects. He is again describing a psychological process by which our perceptions are shaped and distorted by our stored mental and linguistic concepts. There is simply no other way of interpreting this that makes any kind of sense. It certainly can't be explained as requiring a specific visual mechanism.

"...and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence..."

And if vision were efferent then we would likewise mistakenly think we actually see these projected values as having an external reality and existence, thus proving that it is only the psychological mechanism of value-projection—and not the (as yet unknown) visual mechanism of efferent vision—that is needed for his second discovery.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When could these photons (at the retina at 12:00) have been located at the Sun? And what traveling have they done?

Please either answer these questions or explain why they allegedly do not apply.

You have said that there will be photons at the retina at 12:00 in your account, so why don't I get to ask questions about them? Why are my questions, which specifically address the things YOU have said about these photons in YOUR account, somehow not applicable to your account?

You have said these photons came from the Sun in your account, so why don't I get to ask when they were at the Sun? How is that question not applicable?

You have said these photons are traveling photons in your account, so why don't I get to ask what traveling they have done? How is that question not applicable?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but also, and this was never understood, as
a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded,
they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects
held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since
the eyes are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in
front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of
relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world
and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses,
man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and
if words correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual
differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for
those who do not know the words.

I don't ever remember seeing words and images projected from anyone's eyes. Peacegirl, please provide a link to a video of this happening, surely someone has made a video of this event, especially if the person is projecting the wrong words that do not describe the reality of the object being observed, such as the word "Beautiful" being projected onto an ugly girl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts
as a tape recorder through our ears and the other four senses, and a
camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as
a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded,
they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects
held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since
the eyes are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in
front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of
relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world
and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses,
man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and
if words correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual
differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for
those who do not know the words.

I notice that twice in this excerpt there is a reference to 5 senses, was this Lessans error or your's, since elsewhere in the book Lessans claims that there are only 4 senses, and vision is not a sense?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you carefully read it, then explain it, damn it, otherwise there is absolutely no point in continuing this ridiculous conversation.

Spacemonkey did explain the chapter as he read and understood it, you have failed to understand both spacemonkey's explanation and the chapter 4. The fault is not with Spacemonkey, but with you.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to keep in mind that, according to peacegirl's logic, if your explanation does include an expression of complete agreement, then you have not provided an accurate explanation.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, you are claiming that this is not a psychological process, but a physical process, where actual words are projected onto objects and people. If that is true, then it can be observed by a 3rd person who is observing the person seeing an object and the object itself. There should also be video of this happening, so please present a link to the videos that illustrate this.

Originally Posted by thedoc

I don't ever remember seeing words and images projected from anyone's eyes. Peacegirl, please provide a link to a video of this happening, surely someone has made a video of this event, especially if the person is projecting the wrong words that do not describe the reality of the object being observed, such as the word "Beautiful" being projected onto an ugly girl.

Touché

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please quote a part of his explanation that was not figurative metaphor.

Whether he explained it in figurative terms or not has no bearing on the validity of his claim. For example, when he said "at a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this", this was a correct usage of the word photograph. I don't know what other word he could have used.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether he explained it in figurative terms or not has no bearing on the validity of his claim. For example, when he said "at a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this", this was a correct usage of the word photograph. I don't know what other word he could have used.

So you now agree that his entire explanation was figurative metaphor, exactly as I said. That's fine. Now explain how the literal meaning for these metaphors in any way requires a specific mechanism of vision. (Hint: It doesn't.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you think he was literally talking about words shooting out of people's eyeballs? He described the processes as being like a camera, a kaleidoscope, a projector, a tape recorder, a telescope, and binoculars. These are ALL figurative metaphors. He never explained what any of them meant in literal terms.

I fucking DID! I asked you several times for clarification, and you refused! I asked you in the very post you were here replying to! What the fuck? I'll even ask you again: Please explain and clarify what his metaphors meant in literal terms, and explain how and why any of them require a specific mechanism for vision.

Sure, no problem. Please note that calling it psychological does not mean that it is somehow unreal or imaginary. It just means it concerns psychology, i.e. mental processing, rather than the physiology and physics of sensory perception. And you can show me where any of his explanation is either non-figurative, or is a metaphor representing a specific non-psychological mechanism concerning vision.

"At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a negative..."

Figurative metaphor, as the brain does not really take photographs. And it represents the psychological mechanism of creating and storing archetypes for new concepts.

"But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age."

Figurative metaphor, as the brain does not actually project anything out of a baby's eyes. And it represents the psychological mechanism of using stored archetype-based concepts to shape and influence what we perceive via the senses.

"The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other four senses, and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector."

All figurative metaphor. The brain is not literally any of these things, and all of these processes are psychological by definition. He is talking about how the brain processes and stores information and concepts, and how these concepts shape and influence what we perceive.

"As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain."

Figurative metaphor, as sense experience is not literally shot out of people's eyes at objects. He is again describing a psychological process by which our perceptions are shaped and distorted by our stored mental and linguistic concepts. There is simply no other way of interpreting this that makes any kind of sense. It certainly can't be explained as requiring a specific visual mechanism.

"...and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence..."

And if vision were efferent then we would likewise mistakenly think we actually see these projected values as having an external reality and existence, thus proving that it is only the psychological mechanism of value-projection—and not the (as yet unknown) visual mechanism of efferent vision—that is needed for his second discovery.

Fair enough, it is a psychological mechanism at play, but you're missing the reason why this occurs, which would not occur if the eyes were afferent. His other discovery is also a psychological law of man's nature, but it has a factual underpinning.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fair enough, it is a psychological mechanism at play...

Thank you for conceding this. I'm glad you agree.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but you're missing the reason why this occurs, which would not occur if the eyes were afferent.

Please explain this reason you think I am missing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you now agree that his entire explanation was figurative metaphor, exactly as I said. That's fine. Now explain how the literal meaning for these metaphors in any way requires a specific mechanism of vision. (Hint: It doesn't.)

Totally irrelevant. I do not have to explain it in literal terms. If you want, take out the terms camera, movie projector, binoculars, and you will hopefully still get an understanding of how the eyes work in the efferent model. What is more important is to determine if this conditioning (the attaching of a value onto an object through projection) can occur in the afferent account. I don't believe it can.