You are a broken record Spacemonkey...Yep. I keep asking you to be reasonable and you keep refusing. I guess your definition of reasonable is different than mine. Peacegirl. your's and Lessans definitions of almost all the words used in the book are idiosyncratic and do not reflect common usage. Common usage is what determines the meaning of a word, since words are just labels for different concepts, and have no intrinsic meaning of their own. You have said that words have no meaning, and you are partly correct, but the meaning is there and the words are just the labels applied to those meanings. That is why Lessans suggestion to remove certain words from the language is so laughable, the meanings would remain with different words. A beautiful girl would be just as beautiful whether we applied that word or a different one, and Lessans would be just as stupid, with or without a PhD, but a real PhD requires a demonstration of scholarship that Lessans had no understanding of.
No, the sunlight would have to travel to Earth to actually penetrate your skin for you to feel its warmth. I agree. This is a function of the afferent thermoreceptors in our skin. The efferent function of these receptors then sends signals to our brain which are interpreted and experienced as warmth. Are we in further agreement on this? But you state that sunlight does not have to travel to Earth to actually penetrate your eye (an afferent photoreceptor). for you to see the sun. Can you understand my skepticism about these apparent conflicting statements? Can you explain to me the difference in function between thermoreceptors and photoreceptors so that I can understand? Indulge me, I am a good guy. I'll offer this as a starting point.peacegirl, Who said it would take 8.5 seconds to see your neighbor? You mean minutes?I gave you the benefit of doubt. Oops, rereading my post I also discovered I misplaced a few commas. My bad. The longer you say it takes, the more wrong you would be. But tell me peacegirl, if the sun were turned on @ noon, when would you feel the warmth of the sunlight? Would that be instantaneous or would you have to wait 8 1/2 minutes?
The retina is the back part of the eye that contains the cells that respond to light. These specialized cells are called (afferent) photoreceptors
GdB,
I thought the beans conversation was interesting. At the moment we disagree over the fairness of withholding the medical treatment from the man who chooses the beans. I don’t see any fairness, though I might if we delve deeper (I dunno).
If causal antecedents had been slightly and appropriately different he would have chosen not to eat them.
But a miss is as good as a mile.
To be clear My opinion is that Lessans explanation of free will vs. determinism is just as flawed as his explanation of light and sightNot at all if what Peacegirl says about free will is the same. There are at least two ways the term free will is used. One is what philosophers have called "the freedom of indifference". This is what peacegirl correctly argues against correctly pointing out that to make a choice you must pick an option out as the best somehow. You evaluate that option over the others. Given you evaluated the options that way you CNHDO. That was the way I put it. Peacegirl puts it in terms of greatest satisfaction. This does mean we are not blameworthy (or praiseworthy) in the ordinary sense that people have that we can deserve it.
The whole N and P fiasco I tried didn't work because this is not about photons; it's about the eyes. You don't get it Spacemonkey. You are not asking me about my own account because if you were you would be interested in determining whether the claim about the EYES was accurate. You are not interested.I am asking you about your account. I'm asking about the bit that to any sane mind is clearly flat out impossible. Your account requires photons at the retina at 12pm but cannot explain how they could possibly get to be there. Clearly YOU'RE not interested in being honest or reasonable. If you were at all interested in truth here, you'd be trying to address the photon issue to see if there is any way to salvage efferent vision. Instead you have given up in tacit acknowledgement that efferent vision cannot be saved. It's okay Spacemonkey. There's no hope for efferent vision because the photons haven't gotten there. Now go and live your life and be happy! :lol:
No, the sunlight would have to travel to Earth to actually penetrate your skin for you to feel its warmth. I agree. This is a function of the afferent thermoreceptors in our skin. The efferent function of these receptors then sends signals to our brain which are interpreted and experienced as warmth. Are we in further agreement on this? But you state that sunlight does not have to travel to Earth to actually penetrate your eye (an afferent photoreceptor). for you to see the sun. Can you understand my skepticism about these apparent conflicting statements? Can you explain to me the difference in function between thermoreceptors and photoreceptors so that I can understand? Indulge me, I am a good guy. I'll offer this as a starting point.peacegirl, Who said it would take 8.5 seconds to see your neighbor? You mean minutes?I gave you the benefit of doubt. Oops, rereading my post I also discovered I misplaced a few commas. My bad. The longer you say it takes, the more wrong you would be. But tell me peacegirl, if the sun were turned on @ noon, when would you feel the warmth of the sunlight? Would that be instantaneous or would you have to wait 8 1/2 minutes?
The retina is the back part of the eye that contains the cells that respond to light. These specialized cells are called (afferent) photoreceptorsYes, these photoreceptors respond to light which is what they are doing. Because the eyes are efferent we have to follow this reasoning. We are no longer looking at distance for light to be at the eye because the light is not what is traveling and forming an image in the brain in this account. That is the afferent view. We are seeing the object in real time due to light's presence, which does not take 8 1/2 minutes to arrive. It's there because the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen. Remember, we are not talking about time and distance for there to be a mirror image at the eye. I know this explanation is not going to be completely satisfactory, but I'm trying to give you some understanding as to why the change in the function of the eye allows this mirror image (the non-absorbed photons) to be at the retina the instant we turn our gaze to any scene that is within our field of view.
GdB, I thought the beans conversation was interesting. At the moment we disagree over the fairness of withholding the medical treatment from the man who chooses the beans. I don't see any fairness, though I might if we delve deeper (I dunno). If causal antecedents had been slightly and appropriately different he would have chosen not to eat them. But a miss is as good as a mile.So true. It doesn't matter how slight the difference is that may have determined a different outcome, it is still a miss! Love that!
The whole N and P fiasco I tried didn't work because this is not about photons; it's about the eyes. You don't get it Spacemonkey. You are not asking me about my own account because if you were you would be interested in determining whether the claim about the EYES was accurate. You are not interested.I am asking you about your account. I'm asking about the bit that to any sane mind is clearly flat out impossible. Your account requires photons at the retina at 12pm but cannot explain how they could possibly get to be there. Clearly YOU'RE not interested in being honest or reasonable. If you were at all interested in truth here, you'd be trying to address the photon issue to see if there is any way to salvage efferent vision. Instead you have given up in tacit acknowledgement that efferent vision cannot be saved. It's okay Spacemonkey. There's no hope for efferent vision because the photons haven't gotten there. Now go and live your life and be happy! :lol: Ah, the old trick of fake conceding once again. Have you ever considered just being honest?
Yes, these photoreceptors respond to light which is what they are doing.Where did this light at the eye come from? How did it get there?
We are no longer looking at distance for light to be at the eye because the light is not what is traveling and forming an image in the brain.How did the light at the eye get there if it didn't travel there?
We are seeing the object in real time due to light's presence, which does not take 8 1/2 minutes to arrive.How long does it to get from the Sun to the eye on Earth then, if not 8 1/2 minutes?
It's there because the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen.This doesn't explain how it got there. How can it be there before it's had time to travel there?
I know this explanation is not going to be completely satisfactory...It's not even remotely satisfactory. It's pure bullocks as you know perfectly well. You are still completely evading the problem.
The whole N and P fiasco I tried didn't work because this is not about photons; it's about the eyes. You don't get it Spacemonkey. You are not asking me about my own account because if you were you would be interested in determining whether the claim about the EYES was accurate. You are not interested.I am asking you about your account. I'm asking about the bit that to any sane mind is clearly flat out impossible. Your account requires photons at the retina at 12pm but cannot explain how they could possibly get to be there. Clearly YOU'RE not interested in being honest or reasonable. If you were at all interested in truth here, you'd be trying to address the photon issue to see if there is any way to salvage efferent vision. Instead you have given up in tacit acknowledgement that efferent vision cannot be saved. It's okay Spacemonkey. There's no hope for efferent vision because the photons haven't gotten there. Now go and live your life and be happy! :lol: Ah, the old trick of fake conceding once again. Have you ever considered just being honest? I didn't fake concede. I know that you know I was being sarcastic, but I want you to have a way out. Since I am not going to discuss traveling photons with you, and you believe that this is necessary to save efferent vision, then according to you there is no saving this account. I'm acquiescing to you, is all.
Yes, these photoreceptors respond to light which is what they are doing.Where did this light at the eye come from? How did it get there?
We are no longer looking at distance for light to be at the eye because the light is not what is traveling and forming an image in the brain.How did the light at the eye get there if it didn't travel there?
We are seeing the object in real time due to light's presence, which does not take 8 1/2 minutes to arrive.How long does it to get from the Sun to the eye on Earth then, if not 8 1/2 minutes?
It's there because the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen.This doesn't explain how it got there. How can it be there before it's had time to travel there?
I know this explanation is not going to be completely satisfactory...It's not even remotely satisfactory. It's pure bullocks as you know perfectly well. You are still completely evading the problem. I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Write4U. I know this isn't satisfactory to you, but you never understood the conditions that make it possible for a mirror image to occur [instantly] since distance is not a factor. You just don't get it, or you have a block toward it. Not sure.
The whole N and P fiasco I tried didn't work because this is not about photons; it's about the eyes. You don't get it Spacemonkey. You are not asking me about my own account because if you were you would be interested in determining whether the claim about the EYES was accurate. You are not interested.I am asking you about your account. I'm asking about the bit that to any sane mind is clearly flat out impossible. Your account requires photons at the retina at 12pm but cannot explain how they could possibly get to be there. Clearly YOU'RE not interested in being honest or reasonable. If you were at all interested in truth here, you'd be trying to address the photon issue to see if there is any way to salvage efferent vision. Instead you have given up in tacit acknowledgement that efferent vision cannot be saved. It's okay Spacemonkey. There's no hope for efferent vision because the photons haven't gotten there. Now go and live your life and be happy! :lol: Ah, the old trick of fake conceding once again. Have you ever considered just being honest? I didn't fake concede. I know that you know I was being sarcastic, but I want you to have a way out. Since I am not going to discuss traveling photons with you, and you believe that this is necessary to save efferent vision, then according to you there is no saving this account. I'm acquiescing to you, is all. AKA fake conceding. Why can't you just be honest?
I wasn't talking to you.I know. You're deliberately evading all of my questions.
I know this isn't satisfactory to you...How can it possibly be satisfactory to you? How can anyone's standards be this low?
...but you never understood the conditions that make it possible for a mirror image to occur [instantly]...No-one - yourself included - understands what could make it possible for photons to be somewhere before they've had time to get there.
You just don't get it, or you have a block toward it. Not sure.I do have a block. That block is you, blockhead. I'm asking you about the bits I don't understand, but you keep refusing to answer.
GdB, I thought the beans conversation was interesting. At the moment we disagree over the fairness of withholding the medical treatment from the man who chooses the beans. I don't see any fairness, though I might if we delve deeper (I dunno). If causal antecedents had been slightly and appropriately different he would have chosen not to eat them. But a miss is as good as a mile.So true. It doesn't matter how slight the difference is that may have determined a different outcome, it is still a miss! Love that! Yep. You've got it and most people don't.
I wasn't talking to you.I know. You're deliberately evading all of my questions.
I know this isn't satisfactory to you...How can it possibly be satisfactory to you? How can anyone's standards be this low?
...but you never understood the conditions that make it possible for a mirror image to occur [instantly]...No-one - yourself included - understands what could make it possible for photons to be somewhere before they've had time to get there.
You just don't get it, or you have a block toward it. Not sure.I do have a block. That block is you, blockhead. I'm asking you about the bits I don't understand, but you keep refusing to answer. So now you're going to start with the namecalling like you did at FF, and you think that's going to help matters? Talk about being counterproductive. :-/
I wasn't talking to you.I know. You're deliberately evading all of my questions.
I know this isn't satisfactory to you...How can it possibly be satisfactory to you? How can anyone's standards be this low?
...but you never understood the conditions that make it possible for a mirror image to occur [instantly]...No-one - yourself included - understands what could make it possible for photons to be somewhere before they've had time to get there.
You just don't get it, or you have a block toward it. Not sure.I do have a block. That block is you, blockhead. I'm asking you about the bits I don't understand, but you keep refusing to answer. So now you're going to start with the namecalling like you did at FF, and you think that's going to help matters? Talk about being counterproductive. :-/ Try being honest. Try being reasonable. Just once. See what it's like.
GdB, I thought the beans conversation was interesting. At the moment we disagree over the fairness of withholding the medical treatment from the man who chooses the beans. I don't see any fairness, though I might if we delve deeper (I dunno). If causal antecedents had been slightly and appropriately different he would have chosen not to eat them. But a miss is as good as a mile.Stephen, I answered you here].
I agree. This is a function of the afferent thermoreceptors in our skin. The efferent function of these receptors then sends signals to our brain which are interpreted and experienced as warmth. Are we in further agreement on this?One small point. The thermoreceptors are the ends of afferent nerves, the afferent function is to send signals to the brain, any efferent nerves would be receiving signals from the brain, such as the response to perspire.
I agree. This is a function of the afferent thermoreceptors in our skin. The efferent function of these receptors then sends signals to our brain which are interpreted and experienced as warmth. Are we in further agreement on this?One small point. The thermoreceptors are the ends of afferent nerves, the afferent function is to send signals to the brain, any efferent nerves would be receiving signals from the brain, such as the response to perspire. Yes, I was not clear. But this below is the short official function of each:
Afferent neurons are responsible for receiving and transmitting external messages to the central nervous system from all parts of the body. In contrast, Efferent neurons are responsible for receiving and transmitting internal messages to all parts of the body. • Afferent neurons make up sensory nerves while efferent neurons make up motor nerves.and
The optic nerve, or more precisely, the photosensitive ganglion cells through the retinohypothalamic tract, is responsible for the afferent limb of the pupillary reflex - it senses the incoming light. The oculomotor nerve is responsible for the efferent limb of the pupillary reflex - it drives the muscles that constrict the pupilI generalized this as Afferent = receiving/imaging, and Efferent = sending/muscle action. Sloppy and misleading, sorry.
No, the sunlight would have to travel to Earth to actually penetrate your skin for you to feel its warmth. I agree. This is a function of the afferent thermoreceptors in our skin. The efferent function of these receptors then sends signals to our brain which are interpreted and experienced as warmth. Are we in further agreement on this? But you state that sunlight does not have to travel to Earth to actually penetrate your eye (an afferent photoreceptor). for you to see the sun. Can you understand my skepticism about these apparent conflicting statements? Can you explain to me the difference in function between thermoreceptors and photoreceptors so that I can understand? Indulge me, I am a good guy. I'll offer this as a starting point.peacegirl, Who said it would take 8.5 seconds to see your neighbor? You mean minutes?I gave you the benefit of doubt. Oops, rereading my post I also discovered I misplaced a few commas. My bad. The longer you say it takes, the more wrong you would be. But tell me peacegirl, if the sun were turned on @ noon, when would you feel the warmth of the sunlight? Would that be instantaneous or would you have to wait 8 1/2 minutes?
The retina is the back part of the eye that contains the cells that respond to light. These specialized cells are called (afferent) photoreceptorsYes, these photoreceptors respond to light which is what they are doing. Because the eyes are efferent we have to follow this reasoning. We are no longer looking at distance for light to be at the eye because the light is not what is traveling and forming an image in the brain in this account. That is the afferent view. We are seeing the object in real time due to light's presence, which does not take 8 1/2 minutes to arrive. It's there because the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen. Remember, we are not talking about time and distance for there to be a mirror image at the eye. I know this explanation is not going to be completely satisfactory, but I'm trying to give you some understanding as to why the change in the function of the eye allows this mirror image (the non-absorbed photons) to be at the retina the instant we turn our gaze to any scene that is within our field of view. I agree, that answer is wholly unsatisfactory. Three observation: a) the eye is an AFFERENT organ (a passive receptor, which transmits information to the brain as an upside-down image). It has nothing to do with a neural mirror network (at that stage). b) the upside down image (interpreted in the brain as right side up) is dependent on distance , i.e. things look small at a distance, not lifesize, which proves distance is a factor in vision. c) the the eyes are afferent, the receive and transmit inward, they do not project outward. This has been tested and found to be true. Two questions: a) You have stated several times that the "left-over" (non absorbed) photons remain present, but if all other photons pass you by, why would some remain stationary in front of your closed eyes, which at that time are covered by the eyelid which does have thermoreceptors and can feel the photons striking the eyelid and if bright enough will still register some light behind the eylid on the retina. b) When we turn our afferent eyes and see the object instantly, does that happen without photons having traveled there through space in the first place? When you open your eyes you will see new photons arriving at your retina, which were already on-the-way when you had your eyes closed, not left-over photons from when you had your eyes closed. Those photons were already received by the (also afferent) thermoreceptors of the eylid. Your confusion lies in the assumption that the eye (as a photosensor) is an efferent organ. That is a false assumption and contrary to the library of facts in science. It is somewhat confusing as evidenced by my incorrect (sloppy) usage of the term myself. I am usually precise in quoting from reliable sources, but I must have been tired or distracted at the time I wrote that. When Bush evaded being hit by a shoe, he did not do so until the shoe had travelled some distance from the thrower towards him. He could see the shoe approaching as the light carrying the image was much faster that the velocity of the shoe. This is why he was able to avoid being hit. A pure reflex action from the afferent function of receptor and the efferent neural motor response. But trying to get back to the philosophical topic of FW, what do eyes have to do with free choice or compulsive behavior in the direction of greater satisfaction? I know you did not intrduce the subject, but it is part of the book which you declare to be revelatory. Take it out of the book and then you need not deal with this incorrect assuption ny Leassans. Kinda like removing the word 'blame" from the dictionary, remove the word "efferent eye" from the book and it wil gain in stature.