As I noted upthread, Lessans never stated that the light had to be at the retina to be seen. He stated it only had to be at the sun. That is why, according to him, we would see the sun instantly at noon, but not the neighbors until some eight minutes had passed and the photons had arrived. His "model" was the light was seen, wherever and whenever it was at the object, and not the retina.
So for years peacegirl has been huffing and puffing to defend a strawman of her father's position. Pretty hilarious! :lol:
There is no inconsistency between Lessans' statement and mine. It is true that light only has to be at the object, but that does not mean, in the efferent account of vision, there is a gap of darkness between the object and the observer. That's what you are not grasping. I have very little hope that you ever will because of your defense mechanisms.
There is no efferent (extramissive) account of vision. It is a scientifically "unsupported" assumption. Any efferent function of the eye is a "reflexive" autoresponse such as focusing or adjusting the iris to control brightness.
Extramissive is not the assumption Write4U. You are classifying his claim inaccurately.
The eye is an afferent (intromissive) organ, a receptor evolved to process specific frequencies (visible spectrum) of incoming lightwaves from an object in a specific manner, allowing the brain to form a mental image of that object.
That's the theory, yes, that the brain is interpreting the image rather than the brain using the eyes as a window to see the real world.
In the skin, the same afferent (intromissive) receptors are present, but they are evolved to process specific frequencies (infrared spectrum) of the same incoming lightwaves in a specific manner, allowing the brain to experience warmth (sunburn).
The sense of touch has a different mechanism than the eyes. Again, I am not saying that the wavelength that is at the eye is not allowing us to see the object. The disagreement comes from what the brain is believed to be doing in conjunction with the eyes.
peacegirl, do you dispute these two scientifically "supported" facts?
The only thing that is being disputed here is whether the brain is decoding the impulses into normal vision, or if the light at the retina (the mirror image I spoke of) is allowing the brain to peer through the eyes to see the object (not the image) in real time. It isn't as far-fetched as you think. It just feels that way because no one has opposed this theory in the way Lessans has.
peacegirl,
Extramissive is not the assumption Write4U. You are classifying his claim inaccurately.
No, there are only two possible mechanisms in observation of objects. Intromission (passive reception) or Extramission (active projection). Which mechanism does the sun use and which mechanism does the eye use, according to Lessans?
You are classifying Lessans claim as the eye possessing efferent vision and that is not accurate.
Afferent Neurons
The meaning of afferent is carrying sensory information such as nerve impulse toward a central organ or a part like brain from the periphery of the body. Afferent or sensory neurons are specialized cells that help to conduct nerve impulse to the central nervous system from all parts of the body. Afferent neurons are activated by physical modalities such as light, sound, temperature etc.
Efferent Neurons
Efferent neurons (also known as motor neurons) are found inside the central nervous systems (in the gray matter of spinal cord and medulla oblongata) that are responsible for receiving information from other neurons and transmitting nerve impulse to the periphery of the body such as muscles, glands etc.
Are you suggesting we should change these definitions?
peacegirl,
Extramissive is not the assumption Write4U. You are classifying his claim inaccurately.
No, there are only two possible mechanisms in observation of objects. Intromission (passive reception) or Extramission (active projection). Which mechanism does the sun use and which mechanism does the eye use, according to Lessans?
You are classifying Lessans claim as the eye possessing efferent vision and that is not accurate.
Afferent Neurons
The meaning of afferent is carrying sensory information such as nerve impulse toward a central organ or a part like brain from the periphery of the body. Afferent or sensory neurons are specialized cells that help to conduct nerve impulse to the central nervous system from all parts of the body. Afferent neurons are activated by physical modalities such as light, sound, temperature etc.
Efferent Neurons
Efferent neurons (also known as motor neurons) are found inside the central nervous systems (in the gray matter of spinal cord and medulla oblongata) that are responsible for receiving information from other neurons and transmitting nerve impulse to the periphery of the body such as muscles, glands etc.
Are you suggesting we should change these definitions?
We've already been down this road with her. Lessans specifically wrote that there were no afferent nerves in the eye. :lol: A biologist then wrote her a 30-page paper explaining how light and sight works down to the atomic level. She refused it to read it.
Good luck chasing her down the rabbit hole! :lol:
peacegirl,
Extramissive is not the assumption Write4U. You are classifying his claim inaccurately.
No, there are only two possible mechanisms in observation of objects. Intromission (passive reception) or Extramission (active projection). Which mechanism does the sun use and which mechanism does the eye use, according to Lessans?
The eye is used in the same way that is has always been used but the difference is how the brain and the eye interact.
You are classifying Lessans claim as the eye possessing efferent vision and that is not accurate.
That was the only way he could explain the fact that the eyes do not send impulses to the brain that are then interpreted as images. Maybe you can come up with a better way.
Afferent Neurons
The meaning of afferent is carrying sensory information such as nerve impulse toward a central organ or a part like brain from the periphery of the body. Afferent or sensory neurons are specialized cells that help to conduct nerve impulse to the central nervous system from all parts of the body. Afferent neurons are activated by physical modalities such as light, sound, temperature etc.
Our pupils do react to light but the light does not transduce into a form that can then be interpreted by the brain.
Efferent Neurons
Efferent neurons (also known as motor neurons) are found inside the central nervous systems (in the gray matter of spinal cord and medulla oblongata) that are responsible for receiving information from other neurons and transmitting nerve impulse to the periphery of the body such as muscles, glands etc.
Are you suggesting we should change these definitions?
Not at all. I'm saying that the term efferent was used because no stimulus from the outside is entering the eye where it is then interpreted as sight. That is what the definition of sense organ is, and the eyes don't meet that definition.
peacegirl,
Extramissive is not the assumption Write4U. You are classifying his claim inaccurately.
No, there are only two possible mechanisms in observation of objects. Intromission (passive reception) or Extramission (active projection). Which mechanism does the sun use and which mechanism does the eye use, according to Lessans?
You are classifying Lessans claim as the eye possessing efferent vision and that is not accurate.
Afferent Neurons
The meaning of afferent is carrying sensory information such as nerve impulse toward a central organ or a part like brain from the periphery of the body. Afferent or sensory neurons are specialized cells that help to conduct nerve impulse to the central nervous system from all parts of the body. Afferent neurons are activated by physical modalities such as light, sound, temperature etc.
Efferent Neurons
Efferent neurons (also known as motor neurons) are found inside the central nervous systems (in the gray matter of spinal cord and medulla oblongata) that are responsible for receiving information from other neurons and transmitting nerve impulse to the periphery of the body such as muscles, glands etc.
Are you suggesting we should change these definitions?
We've already been down this road with her. Lessans specifically wrote that there were no afferent nerves in the eye. :lol: A biologist then wrote her a 30-page paper explaining how light and sight works down to the atomic level. She refused it to read it.
Good luck chasing her down the rabbit hole! :lol:
He said there are no similar afferent nerve endings.
Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.
He said there are no similar afferent nerve endings.
Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.
And what Lessans said was completely wrong, science has dissected the human eye and the retina is made up of the ends of afferent nerves that transmit signals to the brain. Any efferent nerves associated with the eye only control the pupil and the movement of the eye. A child sees when there is light reflected form an object or being emitted from an object that enters it's eye and strikes the retina, and is not dependent on the other senses to activate vision. Lessans was wrong.
The eye is used in the same way that is has always been used but the difference is how the brain and the eye interact.
That was the only way he could explain the fact that the eyes do not send impulses to the brain that are then interpreted as images. Maybe you can come up with a better way.
Our pupils do react to light but the light does not transduce into a form that can then be interpreted by the brain.
Not at all. I'm saying that the term efferent was used because no stimulus from the outside is entering the eye where it is then interpreted as sight. That is what the definition of sense organ is, and the eyes don't meet that definition.
Yes the eye is used the same way that science understands it and not the way Lessans described. Lessans had no understanding of how the eye worked, so he made stuff up out of his imagination.
It is not a fact that the eyes do not send impulses to the brain, the fact is that the eyes do send impulses to the brain where those impulses are interpreted as an image.
The eyes react to light by sending impulses to the brain that are interpreted as images.
Lessans even used the term "efferent" incorrectly because the eyes do not project anything out from the brain. Light is the stimulus that enters the eye from the outside and triggers the eye to send signals to the brain. The eye meets every definition of a sense organ.
@peacegirl,
All sensory abilities (our five senses) are windows through which the brain “observes” the environment. I use the term “observes” as defined by:
General relativity
In general relativity the term “observer” refers more commonly to a person (or a machine) making passive local measurements, a usage much closer to the ordinary English meaning of the word.
This definition does not make a distinction between a person or a machine, but it does identify both as “making passive local measurements”.
With exception of the eye, Lessans agrees on that point. Correct?
And in order to explain a difference in function between vision and other senses he used the argument that in the absence of light the eyes cannot see at all because they have not yet been activated in the darkness of the womb, where the other senses are already functional even inside the womb. You explained that if a child was locked up for twenty years in a dark room it would not be able to process images produced by light until it had opportunity to associate images with the stimulus from the other senses.
I will even produce a RW example in support of that claim.
An experiment was performed on cats. Several newborn cats were placed in a room with only vertical posts for an extended period of time. They learned very quickly to navigate the spaces between these vertical posts, avoiding bumping into them. When the kittens were sufficiently acclimated to this environment, they were placed in a room which not only had vertical posts, but also had horizontal posts between the vertical posts, at eyelevel of the cats. It was found that the cats had no problem with the vertical posts, but did not see the horizontal posts and bumped several times into them, before they were able to process the images of the horizontal posts and learned to avoid them as well as the vertical posts.
This experiment seems to support Lessans claim that while we are inherently able to process the information of the other 4 senses, the brain, with the exception of instantly experiencing “incoherent brightness”, must be taught to see “objects” through the stereoscopic window of the eyes. Am I close?
I will even produce a RW example in support of that claim.
An experiment was performed on cats. Several newborn cats were placed in a room with only vertical posts for an extended period of time. They learned very quickly to navigate the spaces between these vertical posts, avoiding bumping into them. When the kittens were sufficiently acclimated to this environment, they were placed in a room which not only had vertical posts, but also had horizontal posts between the vertical posts, at eyelevel of the cats. It was found that the cats had no problem with the vertical posts, but did not see the horizontal posts and bumped several times into them, before they were able to process the images of the horizontal posts and learned to avoid them as well as the vertical posts.
This experiment seems to support Lessans claim that while we are inherently able to process the information of the other 4 senses, the brain, with the exception of instantly experiencing "incoherent brightness", must be taught to see "objects" through the stereoscopic window of the eyes. Am I close?
Was the room lighted or not?
Could the cats recognize their owner from a photograph, thereby disproving efferent vision?
Allow me some leeway here. I am just trying to understand Lessans thought processes, right or wrong.
Was the room lighted or not?
Could the cats recognize their owner from a photograph, thereby disproving efferent vision?
Allow me some leeway here. I am just trying to understand Lessans thought processes, right or wrong.
I'll bet they used levers.
Was the room lighted or not?
Could the cats recognize their owner from a photograph, thereby disproving efferent vision?
Allow me some leeway here. I am just trying to understand Lessans thought processes, right or wrong.
I'll bet they used levers.
:lol:
People here don't know peacegirl like we know peacegirl.
You guys aren’t helping. Indulge my neutral probing for a moment. Perhaps I can get better answers than “you don’t understand”. I want peacegirl to acknowledge somewhere that I do understand Lessans’ reasoning and thus can make an unbiased judgement as to what he meant to say. Set the physics aside, just for a moment.
One thing I believe everyone can agree on is that the brain does direct our attention on a specific object and the brightest object would catch our attention instantly where subtle nuanced reflections would require a more nuanced attention.
peacegirl already acknowledged that Lessans used the word “efferent” for lack of a better word which was more expressive of the internal mental relationships between subjective mental abilities and experience of “vision, attention, recognition”
Optical illusuion is really a very interesting phenomenon. It presents misleading and conflicting information to the brain and the brain responds instantly with a “best guess” of what it experiences, which is actually different from reality. However by “focusing” attention to the details of the illusion, we can know the reason for the illusion, but we are still unable to mentally correct the image of the illusion, it persists in spite of knowledge of why. I find that very interesting.
A great example is the possible direction of spin in the “dancing silhouette” . With careful concentration we can mentally reverse the direction of spin in the animated dancer.
and this simple but very effective illusion of apparent alternate movement of two “feet” which actually move in perfect sync at all times. Play around with the speeds and be amazed at the persistence of the illusion, until you stop the feet.
Induced partial blindness: Motion-Induced Blindness
Oh well, check 'em all, its very entertaining and informative: Visual Phenomena & Optical Illusions
IMO, Lessans was making a claim as to how we mentally experience the physical process. I don’t think he was concerned about the science all that much. It doesn’t seem to apply, but then perhaps it does. See
Multistable perceptual phenomena are a form of perceptual phenomena in which there are unpredictable sequences of spontaneous subjective changes. While usually associated with visual perception, such phenomena can be found for auditory and olfactory percepts.
You guys aren't helping. Indulge my neutral probing for a moment. Perhaps I can get better answers than "you don't understand". I want peacegirl to acknowledge somewhere that I do understand Lessans' reasoning and thus can make an unbiased judgement as to what he meant to say.
Set the physics aside, just for a moment.
One thing I believe everyone can agree on is that the brain does direct our attention on a specific object and the brightest object would catch our attention instantly where subtle nuanced reflections would require a more nuanced attention.
We might be drawn to a brighter object in a landscape but it wouldn't require a more nuanced attention to see a dimmer object. It would just be an object that may not grab out attention as quickly as the brighter object.
peacegirl already acknowledged that Lessans used the word "efferent" for lack of a better word which was more expressive of the internal mental relationships between subjective mental abilities and experience of "vision, attention, recognition"
That's not what I meant. There was no word other than efferent that he could have used, although it doesn't relate to motor neurons.
Optical illusuion is really a very interesting phenomenon. It presents misleading and conflicting information to the brain and the brain responds instantly with a "best guess" of what it experiences, which is actually different from reality. However by "focusing" attention to the details of the illusion, we can know the reason for the illusion, but we are still unable to mentally correct the image of the illusion, it persists in spite of knowledge of why. I find that very interesting.
Optical illusion happens because of the distortion of light through a particular medium. It is an interesting phenomenon but has no relation to which way the eyes see.
A great example is the possible direction of spin in the "dancing silhouette" . With careful concentration we can mentally reverse the direction of spin in the animated dancer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_Dancer
and this simple but very effective illusion of apparent alternate movement of two "feet" which actually move in perfect sync at all times. Play around with the speeds and be amazed at the persistence of the illusion, until you stop the feet.
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot-feetLin/index.html
Induced partial blindness: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot-mib/index.html
Oh well, check 'em all, its very entertaining and informative: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/index.html
I'll have to look at these videos. They sound interesting but do not relate to what we're discussing.
IMO, Lessans was making a claim as to how we mentally experience the physical process. I don't think he was concerned about the science all that much. It doesn't seem to apply, but then perhaps it does. See
Bistable Perception and Consciousness
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123738738000116
and Multistable phenomena
Multistable perceptual phenomena are a form of perceptual phenomena in which there are unpredictable sequences of spontaneous subjective changes. While usually associated with visual perception, such phenomena can be found for auditory and olfactory percepts.
How we perceive what we're seeing has to do with our personal experiences and how we interpret them. I am only discussing whether we see in real time or delayed time. That's it. The rest is interesting but doesn't relate.
See, I am having the same problem as peacegirl.
---------------------------
@peacegirl,
Am I going in the right direction with this?
No, you're getting onto other tangents. I do not acknowledge that you understand Lessans' claim because you don't know how or why he arrived at his conclusions. I gave you one excerpt and from this you are making all kinds of conjectures. You are not in the position to give an unbiased judgment on what he had to say because you don't really know what he said.
There was no word other than efferent that he could have used...
The word 'instantaneous' would have been better, seeing as how there's nothing efferent about his account.
I am only discussing whether we see in real time or delayed time. That's it.
Exactly. See above.
You are not in the position to give an unbiased judgment on what he had to say because you don’t really know whether his position is plausible.
We know that it's NOT plausible for the simple yet decisive reason that light cannot be somewhere before it can get there.
We also know that YOU KNOW it isn't plausible, based on your unrelenting and disciplined avoidance of this very simple point.
You guys aren't helping. Indulge my neutral probing for a moment. Perhaps I can get better answers than "you don't understand". I want peacegirl to acknowledge somewhere that I do understand Lessans' reasoning and thus can make an unbiased judgement as to what he meant to say.
Just sayin', some of us have been down that road with Peacegirl several times, and each time we've gotten a little progress, then she resets her mind, and it's back to the original claims. It's like there was never any progress at all. But, good luck with your efforts.
Was the room lighted or not?
Could the cats recognize their owner from a photograph, thereby disproving efferent vision?
Allow me some leeway here. I am just trying to understand Lessans thought processes, right or wrong.
I'll bet they used levers.
Well that tears it. According to Peacegirl, you can't get anything meaningful with leavers. And we all know that Peacegirl is the High Priestess of Lessanology, which is the end all and be all of knowledge on earth, (outer space just doesn't count, and doesn't prove anything, cause you aren't right there it observe it.)
Was the room lighted or not?
Could the cats recognize their owner from a photograph, thereby disproving efferent vision?
Allow me some leeway here. I am just trying to understand Lessans thought processes, right or wrong.
I'll bet they used levers.
Well that tears it. According to Peacegirl, you can't get anything meaningful with leavers. And we all know that Peacegirl is the High Priestess of Lessanology, which is the end all and be all of knowledge on earth, (outer space just doesn't count, and doesn't prove anything, cause you aren't right there it observe it.)
There you go again with the same old garbage. No substance in any of your posts because you don't have any.