I agree, that answer is wholly unsatisfactory.
Three observation:
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.
Kinda like removing the word 'blame" from the dictionary, remove the word "efferent eye" from the book and it wil gain in stature.
This was covered on FF, and other members got into perspective, and Peacegirl agreed, but demonstrated her incomplete understanding. In effect she invoked perspective to explain why farther objects appear smaller, (thereby proving that distance was a factor) but then insisting that in instant efferent vision, distance was not a factor, contradicting herself. One good thing about Peacegirl's posts, is that knowledgeable people will post the correct scientific data to counter Lessans fantasy.
It has been recommended that the book be paired down to just a discussion of free will and determinism, but that was vehemently rejected by Peacegirl, claiming that the book must be read and accepted in total. No single part of the book should be considered by itself. Peacegirl believes that it is all 100% correct, and therefore doesn't need any editing, but this was one of the criticisms of Lessans, he worked completely on his own, and didn't have, or accept anyone to proofread and correct his errors. As Peacegirl claims, Lessans didn't make any errors, so why have someone reading for errors that don't exist?
I agree, that answer is wholly unsatisfactory.
Three observation:
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.
Kinda like removing the word 'blame" from the dictionary, remove the word "efferent eye" from the book and it wil gain in stature.
This was covered on FF, and other members got into perspective, and Peacegirl agreed, but demonstrated her incomplete understanding. In effect she invoked perspective to explain why farther objects appear smaller, (thereby proving that distance was a factor) but then insisting that in instant efferent vision, distance was not a factor, contradicting herself. One good thing about Peacegirl's posts, is that knowledgeable people will post the correct scientific data to counter Lessans fantasy.
It has been recommended that the book be paired down to just a discussion of free will and determinism, but that was vehemently rejected by Peacegirl, claiming that the book must be read and accepted in total. No single part of the book should be considered by itself. Peacegirl believes that it is all 100% correct,
Until further proof that he was wrong, it is yet to be seen whether he was right or not. The unfortunate situation is that he is looked down upon because his claim goes against the grain of what has been established by science, as true. That is why people are so up in arms. They don't like being told that science might have gotten it wrong.
and therefore doesn't need any editing, but this was one of the criticisms of Lessans, he worked completely on his own, and didn't have, or accept anyone to proofread and correct his errors. As Peacegirl claims, Lessans didn't make any errors, so why have someone reading for errors that don't exist?
Errors? What the hell are you talking about? You have no clue whether there were errors doc. You are the least person to judge this work. I am only asking for an independent study of his claims, but I have only been able to reach these forums. People in these forums are amateurs. Their opinions have nothing to offer in terms of what he discovered and whether these claims are valid and sound. After all, I have yet to get people to take the time to read the book in the order it was written, which you never did. You, like David, misconstrued so much of what he wrote I could vomit.
Errors? What the hell are you talking about?
:lol:
You have no clue whether there were errors doc. You are the least person to judge this work. I am only asking for an independent study of his claims, but I have only been able to reach these forums. People in these forums are amateurs.
Amateurs? Oh, rully?
In your bonkers anti-vax thread, you are talking to a doctor. In your thread at FF, you talked to two physicists and a biologist.
But you seem to want to have it both ways, unsurprisingly. You claim you want the attention of non-amateurs. When you get it, you deny that credentialed people have anything more valid to say than your father, who was, of course, an amateur.
Who do you think you're fooling with this codswallop and blatherskite?
Errors? What the hell are you talking about?
:lol:
You have no clue whether there were errors doc. You are the least person to judge this work. I am only asking for an independent study of his claims, but I have only been able to reach these forums. People in these forums are amateurs.
Amateurs? Oh, rully?
In your bonkers anti-vax thread, you are talking to a doctor. In your thread at FF, you talked to two physicists and a biologist.
But you seem to want to have it both ways, unsurprisingly. You claim you want the attention of non-amateurs. When you get it, you deny that credentialed people have anything more valid to say than
your father, who was, of course, an amateur.
Who do you think you're fooling with this codswallop and blatherskite?
You are being quite generous. In most areas of science the amateurs have educated themselves in the area of science they are interested in, and in many of the sciences, the amateurs have made considerable contributions to the field. Lessans was completely uneducated in the areas he chose to criticize and comment on, yet he felt qualified because he had wild thoughts on the subjects, and just a little education would have cleared up most of his errors.
Errors? What the hell are you talking about? You have no clue whether there were errors doc.
Of course we do, and so do you. You've already corrected several of them after we pointed them out to you. Remember molecules of light? Remember his math puzzle for which he gave an incorrect answer? Likewise, he was also in error to propose an account of vision that requires light to be somewhere before it has had time to get there.
peacegirl,
You have no clue whether there were errors doc. You are the least person to judge this work. I am only asking for an independent study of his claims, but I have only been able to reach these forums. People in these forums are amateurs
Are you an amateur, peacegirl? Then why do you assume you have standing and the privilege to make unsubstantiated claims?
At least the amateurs on CFI, take the time to inform themselves, whereas you wholly refuse to look at any links or quotes from real scientists.You even denegrade scientists as amateurs who do not know what they are talking about.
You have not shown to have any interest in serious discussions about known and tested physics, but insist that Lessans' book is exempt from critical analysis by scientists because of its novelty?
On a dedicated science forum, you would have been banned long ago as a troll and you probably have already. CFI, by its very nature, allows for plenty of time (2500 posts) to make your case, step by step, sentece for sentence. But you refuse to engage in any exchange that questions your viewpoint. It really pains me to say this peacegirl, but you are the amateur, intractably trying to dispense scientific woo, at least on the subject of the eye..
As I said before, you have support on the FW issue. Try to learn how to present that case clearly and concisely. Stephen and GdB, and Pec seems well versed on the subject with greater knowledge than you or I and can help you develop a cohesive argument of Lessans philosophy on that subject, if that is possible.
In psychiatry your debate attitude is usually identified as "passive aggresive". Try to show some humility and curiosity, instead of hubris and certainty, I can guarantee, you will find others who will be glad to share their knowledge with you, as some 9 or 10 people have done here in CFI, these past few thousand posts.
CFI stands for Center For Inquiry, where questions are answered and statements are critically analyzed.
Your statements (there have been no questions) have been critically analyzed and found wanting. Perhaps it is time to ask some questions and I guarantee, you will receive the benefit of the combined knowledge and viewpoints from all who are interested. You can then compare this information with Lessans' book and highlight the paragraphs which are in agreement with demonstrable (scientific) knowledge and thus defensible on those grounds. Where Lessans book differes from "concensus science" is the area you should concentrate on refining or discarding those portions.
If the claim is of an "extraordinary nature" then you will have to provide proof. The claim of a revolutionary sea change in science is an extraordinary claim. Where did Lessans provide demonstrable or logical proofs of his proposition?
From what I understand there is at least one argument which holds water and that is in the matter of "responsibility". This is of course philosophical and logic itself will lead to the correct answer.
But when the subject involves physics, it is hubris and ignorant to say that science "has it wrong" because it has been wrong in the past. This is not the past and we have had thousands of years of observation and tests to define, refine, redefine, modify, and formalize our observations of how things work as Theories of things we believe with some 99.9% certainty to be timelessly true.
If you want to argue all that away and replace it with something new (but untested), you will never succeed.
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?
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. The retina is the back part of the eye that contains the cells that respond to light. These specialized cells are called (afferent) photoreceptors
Yes, 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).
It transmits impulses to the brain.
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.
YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING WHAT I'M SAYING. DISTANCE IS OBVIOUSLY A FACTOR. I SEE THE MOON AT A DISTANCE. THIS DOESN'T TELL ME WHETHER I AM SEEING AN IMAGE OF THE MOON DUE TO TRAVELING LIGHT OR WHETHER I AM SEEING THE ACTUAL MOON IN REAL TIME.
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.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT KIND OF TESTS HAVE PROVED THAT WE INTERPRET IMAGES IN THE BRAIN SUCH THAT WE NO LONGER NEED THE OBJECT TO BE PRESENT.
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 eyelid on the retina.
I am not sure what you mean: some remain stationary. There is no stationary light.
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.
That is true, but the photons do not have to travel to Earth for the wavelength to be at your eye. That's what I mean when I say distance is not a factor since you are already in optical range if you are able to see the object. Light is a condition of sight but it does not bring the image to the eye through space/time. Write4U, I am sorry but I have no desire to continue with this discussion because it won't get us anywhere, and it is sounding more and more like Spacemonkey's flawed reasoning.
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.
That is what is being disputed; he claimed from his observations that the brain looks through the eyes as a window to the external world. Light reveals the world to us; it doesn't bring the world to our eyes.
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.
I don't buy that. Even if we see the actual shoe being thrown we would be able to avoid it if our reflexes were fast enough.
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.
He was not incorrect so I'm not taking it out because knowing this truth changes many things for the better. Only time and more testing will vindicate this man, nothing else.
Errors? What the hell are you talking about? You have no clue whether there were errors doc.
Of course we do, and so do you. You've already corrected several of them after we pointed them out to you. Remember molecules of light? Remember his math puzzle for which he gave an incorrect answer? Likewise, he was also in error to propose an account of vision that requires light to be somewhere before it has had time to get there.
He did not give an incorrect math answer. He made a typo with 9 and 0 since they were right next to each other. Leave it alone Spacemonkey, you are convinced he was wrong so I do not understand why you are here harping on this. I don't think he was wrong and I will never give up until I get scientists to revisit this theory in order to determine, with this claim in mind, whether there was something to it. And the only way this will get done is if scientists stop jumping to premature conclusions because the claim sounds counter-intuitive.
Errors? What the hell are you talking about? You have no clue whether there were errors doc.
Of course we do, and so do you. You've already corrected several of them after we pointed them out to you. Remember molecules of light? Remember his math puzzle for which he gave an incorrect answer? Likewise, he was also in error to propose an account of vision that requires light to be somewhere before it has had time to get there.
He did not give an incorrect math answer. He made a typo with 9 and 0 since they were right next to each other. Leave it alone Spacemonkey, you are convinced he was wrong so I do not understand why you are here harping on this. I don't think he was wrong and I will never give up until I get scientists to revisit this theory in order to determine, with this claim in mind, whether there was something to it. And the only way this will get done is if scientists stop jumping to premature conclusions because the claim sounds counter-intuitive.
Typo or not, it was an error and you had to correct it. Molecules of light was also an error, and that was definitely not a typo. Likewise, an account of vision that requires light to be somewhere before it can get there is also obviously an error.
YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING WHAT I'M SAYING. DISTANCE IS OBVIOUSLY A FACTOR.
When you say that "distance is not a factor", we interpret that as meaning that distance is not a factor. If you really mean that distance
is a factor then you should probably stop claiming that it isn't a factor.
That is true, but the photons do not have to travel to Earth for the wavelength to be at your eye...
Please clarify. Are you saying that the wavelength can be there without the photons being there? Or are you saying that the photons (of which wavelength is a measurable property) can be there without having traveled to get there?
As I said before, you have support on the FW issue. Try to learn how to present that case clearly and concisely. Stephen and GdB, and Pec seems well versed on the subject with greater knowledge than you or I and can help you develop a cohesive argument of Lessans philosophy on that subject, if that is possible.
In psychiatry your debate attitude is usually identified as "passive aggresive". Try to show some humility and curiosity, instead of hubris and certainty, I can guarantee, you will find others who will be glad to share their knowledge with you, as some 9 or 10 people have done here in CFI, these past few thousand posts.
CFI stands for Center For Inquiry, where questions are answered and statements are critically analyzed.
Your statements (there have been no questions) have been critically analyzed and found wanting. Perhaps it is time to ask some questions and I guarantee, you will receive the benefit of the combined knowledge and viewpoints from all who are interested. You can then compare this information with Lessans' book and highlight the paragraphs which are in agreement with demonstrable (scientific) knowledge and thus defensible on those grounds. Where Lessans book differes from "concensus science" is the area you should concentrate on refining or discarding those portions.
This is going to be a problem. Peacegirl has repeatedly stated that she does not come to a forum to learn, but to teach others about her father's book. In the past Peacegirl has indicated that she believes that the giving of knowledge will be a one way street, with her giving out the knowledge to those who are willing to accept it without question. For 13 years people have tried to instruct Peacegirl on many subjects which is why she was so reluctant to discuss anything other than free will and determinism, the only subjects that could not be demonstrated empirically. Well except for reincarnation that is not reincarnation, chapter 10.
YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING WHAT I'M SAYING. DISTANCE IS OBVIOUSLY A FACTOR.
When you say that "distance is not a factor", we interpret that as meaning that distance is not a factor. If you really mean that distance
is a factor then you should probably stop claiming that it isn't a factor.
When I say distance is a factor, obviously what we see has distance (we are seeing the moon at a distance), but distance does not relate to light traveling the distance to reach the eye.
That is true, but the photons do not have to travel to Earth for the wavelength to be at your eye...
Please clarify. Are you saying that the wavelength can be there without the photons being there? Or are you saying that the photons (of which wavelength is a measurable property) can be there without having traveled to get there?
Yes, I am saying that although light travels, the fact that the eye is efferent allows the wavelength to be at the eye instantly as we turn our gaze to said object as long as it's bright enough. You just keep thinking that it's impossible because there is a gap since light hasn't gotten to Earth yet, but that is not required when we're seeing the actual object within our field of view. I will never get through to you Spacemonkey, so I don't even know why I try.
As I said before, you have support on the FW issue. Try to learn how to present that case clearly and concisely. Stephen and GdB, and Pec seems well versed on the subject with greater knowledge than you or I and can help you develop a cohesive argument of Lessans philosophy on that subject, if that is possible.
In psychiatry your debate attitude is usually identified as "passive aggresive". Try to show some humility and curiosity, instead of hubris and certainty, I can guarantee, you will find others who will be glad to share their knowledge with you, as some 9 or 10 people have done here in CFI, these past few thousand posts.
CFI stands for Center For Inquiry, where questions are answered and statements are critically analyzed.
Your statements (there have been no questions) have been critically analyzed and found wanting. Perhaps it is time to ask some questions and I guarantee, you will receive the benefit of the combined knowledge and viewpoints from all who are interested. You can then compare this information with Lessans' book and highlight the paragraphs which are in agreement with demonstrable (scientific) knowledge and thus defensible on those grounds. Where Lessans book differes from "concensus science" is the area you should concentrate on refining or discarding those portions.
This is going to be a problem. Peacegirl has repeatedly stated that she does not come to a forum to learn, but to teach others about her father's book. In the past Peacegirl has indicated that she believes that the giving of knowledge will be a one way street, with her giving out the knowledge to those who are willing to accept it without question. For 13 years people have tried to instruct Peacegirl on many subjects which is why she was so reluctant to discuss anything other than free will and determinism, the only subjects that could not be demonstrated empirically. Well except for reincarnation that is not reincarnation, chapter 10.
No that's not why I discuss free will and determinism. I discuss this topic because it is the true answer to peace on Earth. Don't you think that's a good enough reason? >:-(
Errors? What the hell are you talking about? You have no clue whether there were errors doc.
Of course we do, and so do you. You've already corrected several of them after we pointed them out to you. Remember molecules of light? Remember his math puzzle for which he gave an incorrect answer? Likewise, he was also in error to propose an account of vision that requires light to be somewhere before it has had time to get there.
He did not give an incorrect math answer. He made a typo with 9 and 0 since they were right next to each other. Leave it alone Spacemonkey, you are convinced he was wrong so I do not understand why you are here harping on this. I don't think he was wrong and I will never give up until I get scientists to revisit this theory in order to determine, with this claim in mind, whether there was something to it. And the only way this will get done is if scientists stop jumping to premature conclusions because the claim sounds counter-intuitive.
Typo or not, it was an error and you had to correct it. Molecules of light was also an error, and that was definitely not a typo. Likewise, an account of vision that requires light to be somewhere before it can get there is also obviously an error.
It is immaterial that he made these minor mistakes. He even spelled some words wrong that I corrected. He also used small letters in proper names. You are trying to use these insignificant things to condemn his entire discovery. That's not how it works.
It is immaterial that he made these minor mistakes. He even spelled some words wrong that I corrected. He also used small letters in proper names. You are trying to use these insignificant things to condemn his entire discovery. That's not how it works.
Firstly, I was responding to your bogus claim that we don't know if he made errors. That is nonsense. He did. Trying to pass them off as minor doesn't change the fact that he made these errors. Secondly, presenting an account of vision that requires photons to be somewhere before they can possibly get there is not a minor error or a typo. It is a huge and significant mistake. So I am obviously not using minor typos against him. I am using his whopping great huge mistake which you have been running away from for years.
No that's not why I discuss free will and determinism. I discuss this topic because it is the true answer to peace on Earth. Don't you think that's a good enough reason? >:-(
The debate over free will and determinism will only decide which is true, it will not change how people act, people are already acting according to whichever principle is true. You say that people operate in a free will environment but that is not true, many people operate as if they believe they have free will, it's not the same. If the debate can be settled and the truth determined, it will only reveal the true nature of reality, it will not change the way people act, because they are already acting under whichever principle is true. So that is not a good enough reason, it will not bring world peace, people will still commit crimes and hurt each other and be punished for it.
It is immaterial that he made these minor mistakes. He even spelled some words wrong that I corrected. He also used small letters in proper names. You are trying to use these insignificant things to condemn his entire discovery. That's not how it works.
Lessans made major errors in his book. Light and sight. Where does the money come from to maintain the pay for all those people put out of work? Young people do not fall in love with another persons genitals and live happily ever after. The wife does not always stay home to cook and clean, while the man goes out to earn a living. People will still freely choose whether to sleep together or to use twin beds, twin beds are a Hollywood fantasy from an earlier age.
It is immaterial that he made these minor mistakes. He even spelled some words wrong that I corrected. He also used small letters in proper names. You are trying to use these insignificant things to condemn his entire discovery. That's not how it works.
Firstly, I was responding to your bogus claim that we don't know if he made errors. That is nonsense. He did. Trying to pass them off as minor doesn't change the fact that he made these errors. Secondly, presenting an account of vision that requires photons to be somewhere before they can possibly get there is not a minor error or a typo. It is a huge and significant mistake. So I am obviously not using minor typos against him. I am using his whopping great huge mistake which you have been running away from for years.
All you, David, and doc are doing is trying to find anything you can to make yourself believe that he wasn't capable of making such a discovery. In your mind it makes no sense therefore it has to be wrong. Calling out little errors is just that; an effort to discredit him for reasons that have nothing to do with his discoveries. He was human and therefore not invincible, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with his accurate observations. I'll guarantee you that Edison made trivial mistakes too but not when it came to his discovery. BTW, he was a mathematician in his own right. This was a simple math question. He did not make any errors in his calculations. It was a typo. I don't care what you think Spacemonkey. You also have a vendetta against him because his claim doesn't make sense to you, but you are not the end all. I will find scientists who will desire to do more testing, and if I die before this happens, my children or other people who are interested in this claim will help in this effort.
It is immaterial that he made these minor mistakes. He even spelled some words wrong that I corrected. He also used small letters in proper names. You are trying to use these insignificant things to condemn his entire discovery. That's not how it works.
Lessans made major errors in his book. Light and sight. Where does the money come from to maintain the pay for all those people put out of work?
You didn't read his solution doc. It was right there in the economic chapter. That proves to me that you read nothing.
Young people do not fall in love with another persons genitals and live happily ever after. The wife does not always stay home to cook and clean, while the man goes out to earn a living. People will still freely choose whether to sleep together or to use twin beds, twin beds are a Hollywood fantasy from an earlier age.
He did not say that people fall in love with genitals, but sex is important, and when there is no criticism as to a person's choice (which there is in today's world) there will be nothing stopping two people from falling in love who may have been criticized for their choice previously. People will be able to sleep in the same bed if that's what they choose. The only thing that changes is the criticism that says we must sleep in the same bed because this is a condition of marriage. You understand nothing and that's why your responses are so ignorant.
All you, David, and doc are doing is trying to find anything you can to make yourself believe that he wasn't capable of making such a discovery. In your mind it makes no sense therefore it has to be wrong. Calling out little errors is just that; an effort to discredit him for reasons that have nothing to do with his discoveries. He was human and therefore not invincible, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with his accurate observations. I'll guarantee you that Edison made trivial mistakes too but not when it came to his discovery. BTW, he was a mathematician in his own right. This was a simple math question. He did not make any errors in his calculations. It was a typo. I don't care what you think Spacemonkey. You also have a vendetta against him because his claim doesn't make sense to you, but you are not the end all. I will find scientists who will desire to do more testing, and if I die before this happens, my children or other people who are interested in this claim will help in this effort.
Edison is a good example, you say he didn't make any mistakes with his discovery? With the light bulb, Edison had several failures before he got it right, so he did make mistakes with his discovery. Lessans had one big failure, his book, which he never got right, and never corrected his errors.