“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[pood]

So, “nothing impinges on the optic nerve,” peacegirl? You do realize that the pupil is a HOLE, right? Do you know what the next step is, after the light passes through the hole of the pupil?

 

[pood]

Or, to put it another way, please tell us what the AUTHOR thinks happens when the light passes through the pupil, but “nothing impinges on the optic nerve”? What in the world DOES happen, according to him? What in the world did he, and you, think an optic nerve is FOR??

But you and I both know he never actually says, does he?

 

[pood]

Now, on my brilliant eye-as-refrigerator model, cool, misty refrigerator vapor blows out through the pupil and makes that girl over there look cool, or fixes this dumb ass over here with a icy stare. This is a mathematical truth that has not been understood until now.

 

[pood]

You see, peacegirl, your author does indeed say that light enters the eye through the pupil which expands or contacts according to how bright it is. What happens next, on HIS model? He does not say, does he? He merely says that “nothing impinges on the optic nerve.” So what DOES happen? Crickets. Nada. Zip. In other words, he’s got no model. In order to challenge the existing model, he needs a complete alternative model of what happens after light passes through the pupil, which he admits it does, and then that model must not only at least account for everything our existing model does, but hopefully also make novel testable predictions that our current model does not. But, he doesn’t do this, does he?

Saying “efferent vision” over and over again IS NOT A MODEL, IT IS A LABEL. What is the MODEL behind the LABEL?

 

[peacegirl]

. Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve, even though the pupils dilate and contract according to the intensity of light, it becomes possible to separate what exists in the external world from that which is only a negative or word in our head.

Just mind-blowing.

To you it may be mind-blowing, but who are you other than someone who hates the idea that we may actually not see in delayed time.

 

[pood]

. Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve, even though the pupils dilate and contract according to the intensity of light, it becomes possible to separate what exists in the external world from that which is only a negative or word in our head.

Just mind-blowing.

To you it may be mind-blowing, but who are you other than someone who hates the idea that we may actually not see in delayed time.

Peacegirl, please answer the questions above. Your author says the light does indeed pass through the pupil. What happens then, on HIS model? Just answer the questions! This should be easy for you, given the genius that your writer was!

Of did he forget to IMPART this vital information, somehow?

 

[pood]

See, peacegirl, this is a model. It’s a model of how the eyes actually work.

What is YOUR AUTHOR’S MODEL? Could he have condensed into a two-minute video as was done above? Can YOU?

 

[DBT]

. Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve, even though the pupils dilate and contract according to the intensity of light, it becomes possible to separate what exists in the external world from that which is only a negative or word in our head.

Just mind-blowing.

To you it may be mind-blowing, but who are you other than someone who hates the idea that we may actually not see in delayed time.

Sorry, but the idea just has no merit. All the evidence goes against it, and there is nothing to suggest that it may be true. It's an assertion.

 

[peacegirl]

Now, on my brilliant eye-as-refrigerator model, cool, misty refrigerator vapor blows out through the pupil and makes that girl over there look cool, or fixes this dumb ass over here with a icy stare. This is a mathematical truth that has not been understood until now.

Your little vignette was done to intimidate me but who will be embarrassed when he turns out to be right? I am quite aware that his observations are looked at as a form of heresy and are quickly dismissed since the belief that we see the past has been entrenched in scientific thinking. But this still does not prove him wrong. So far, you’re just trying to make him look foolish. You may even succeed in this thread like you did in FF and may actually hurt my efforts. However, your anger at him for challenging this theory that has graduated to fact will do nothing to dissuade me from getting people of influence to hear what he had to say posthumously, and why he was so sure that we see in real time.

 

[pood]

Now, on my brilliant eye-as-refrigerator model, cool, misty refrigerator vapor blows out through the pupil and makes that girl over there look cool, or fixes this dumb ass over here with a icy stare. This is a mathematical truth that has not been understood until now.

Your little vignette was done to intimidate me but who will be embarrassed when he turns out to be right? I am quite aware that his observations are laughed at and quickly dismissed since the belief that we see the past has been entrenched in scientific thinking. But this still does not prove him wrong. So far, you’re just trying to make him look foolish. You may even succeed in this thread like you did in FF and may actually hurt my efforts. However, this alone does nothing to dissuade me from getting people of influence to hear his reasoning and why he was so sure that we see in real time.

Peacegirl, why are you ignoring my posts above? I am asking you to supply his MODEL, in the same way that the video I linked to you (aimed at children) supplies the MODEL for how science says we see. Peacegirl, your author says light indeed enters the eye through the pupil, and I am asking you to explain WHAT HAPPENS NEXT ON HIS MODEL?

 

[pood]

 

[peacegirl]

As the eye evolved to detect and absorb light, the eye is a sense organ.

Detecting and absorbing light (which the eyes do) does not prove that impulses are interpreted as images in the brain in the way the term “sense organ” is defined.

So the eye detects and absorbs light, but … it’s not a sense organ.

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

 

[pood]

As the eye evolved to detect and absorb light, the eye is a sense organ.

Detecting and absorbing light (which the eyes do) does not prove that impulses are interpreted as images in the brain in the way the term “sense organ” is defined.

So the eye detects and absorbs light, but … it’s not a sense organ.

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

Peacegirl, please attend to the posts above. He agrees with the standard model that light passes through the cornea and enters the hole of the pupil, which expands or contracts according to brightness. So far, so good. What happens next, on his model??

We have the standard model, in the video I linked you to:

1. Light enters pupils
2. Lens focuses light on retina
3. Retina, consisting of vast numbers of photoreceptors for color and light/dark, converts the light into electrical signals.
4. Optical nerve sends these signals to the brain for processing.
5. Brain interprets the patterns of light as images and assigns meanings to them based on experience.

So far you and your author have:

1. Light enters pupils
2.
3.
4.
5.
More??

Please be good enough to fill in those missing steps for us, because your genius author appears to have forgotten to do so. Thanks in advance!

 

[peacegirl]

Or, to put it another way, please tell us what the AUTHOR thinks happens when the light passes through the pupil, but “nothing impinges on the optic nerve”? What in the world DOES happen, according to him? What in the world did he, and you, think an optic nerve is FOR??

But you and I both know he never actually says, does he?

He said in the very beginning of the chapter that light itself does not cause sight. He gave a hypothetical example as to the need for other sense experience for the baby to focus.

Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches, or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract depending on the intensity?”

That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing. If there was no light, we could not see, and if there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums, whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve. Did you ever wonder why the eyes of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what exists around him, although the other four senses are in full working order?

“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”

“And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is not the truth. In fact, if a newborn infant was placed in a soundproof room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a prerequisite of sight — even though his eyes were wide open —he could never have the desire to see. Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other four organs of sense, this baby, child, young, and middle aged person would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.

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. The brain records various sounds, tastes, touches, and smells in relation to the objects from which these experiences are derived and then looks through the eyes to see these things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This desire is an electric current that turns on or focuses the eyes to see that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception — in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes aware that something will soon follow something else, which then arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a potato a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate observation that was never corrected.”

“Well, I say, what difference does it make whether we have four senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel any different, and I still see you just as before.”

“Once it is understood that something existing in the external world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

The most telling and persuasive evidence he had was to show that light does not transmit values such as beauty and ugliness, yet we are conditioned to see these facial differences that favor some features over others. How are we conditioned? Through words. He demonstrates how this takes place, which proves that the brain is capable of photographing and projecting what does not exist. He did not give an exact model as to how the optic nerve works. It wasn't necessary for him to get into that detail when he was only trying to show from his observations that no image is being transmitted. That was the whole point of his claim. Scientists could easily create a new model once his claim would be confirmed to be sound, which at this rate may take 5000 years. Again, what was important was to show from his observations exactly how we become conditioned, which proves categorically that the eyes cannot be a sense organ. Light is at the retina, which he did not refute, and the retina carries impulses. What he was refuting was that these impulses could be transduced into electrical signals that would then be interpreted as an image in the brain. He knew that the optic nerve is the connection between the brain, the eyes, and the external world. When he said that nothing was striking the optic nerve, he meant no picture (or information) was striking the optic nerve. He didn't have to elaborate on the exact model as to how this works. Scientists have created a model as to how delayed vision works, and their model may be wrong if Lessans turns out to be right. What good is their model if it's elaborate but wrong?

 

[pood]

The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums, whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve.

Sorry, no, this is not good enough. “Sound” is NOT carried to eardrums, AIR PRESSURE WAVES are. A “picture” is NOT being carried to our eyes, LIGHT is arriving at our eyes. LIGHT IS NOT A PICTURE, AND AIR PRESSURE WAVES ARE NOT SOUND.

Peacegirl, please fill in the missing blanks in this post.

 

[DBT]

As the eye evolved to detect and absorb light, the eye is a sense organ.

Detecting and absorbing light (which the eyes do) does not prove that impulses are interpreted as images in the brain in the way the term “sense organ” is defined.

So the eye detects and absorbs light, but … it’s not a sense organ.

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

The brain processes the information acquired by the eyes, which was transmitted by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, integrated with memory to enable recognition and represented as subjective conscious imagery of the external world.

How can it be otherwise?

 

[pood]

As the eye evolved to detect and absorb light, the eye is a sense organ.

Detecting and absorbing light (which the eyes do) does not prove that impulses are interpreted as images in the brain in the way the term “sense organ” is defined.

So the eye detects and absorbs light, but … it’s not a sense organ.

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

The brain processes the information acquired by the eyes, which was transmitted by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, integrated with memory to enable recognition and represented as subjective conscious imagery of the external world.

How can it be otherwise?

Indeed, and this means that all the author’s worries about conditioning, which are quite valid, has nothing to do with light or the eyes but with the brain.

 

[peacegirl]

Now, on my brilliant eye-as-refrigerator model, cool, misty refrigerator vapor blows out through the pupil and makes that girl over there look cool, or fixes this dumb ass over here with a icy stare. This is a mathematical truth that has not been understood until now.

Your little vignette was done to intimidate me but who will be embarrassed when he turns out to be right? I am quite aware that his observations are laughed at and quickly dismissed since the belief that we see the past has been entrenched in scientific thinking. But this still does not prove him wrong. So far, you’re just trying to make him look foolish. You may even succeed in this thread like you did in FF and may actually hurt my efforts. However, this alone does nothing to dissuade me from getting people of influence to hear his reasoning and why he was so sure that we see in real time.

Peacegirl, why are you ignoring my posts above? I am asking you to supply his MODEL, in the same way that the video I linked to you (aimed at children) supplies the MODEL for how science says we see. Peacegirl, your author says light indeed enters the eye through the pupil, and I am asking you to explain WHAT HAPPENS NEXT ON HIS MODEL?

Everything up to light

So, “nothing impinges on the optic nerve,” peacegirl? You do realize that the pupil is a HOLE, right? Do you know what the next step is, after the light passes through the hole of the pupil?

Everything is the same other than light bringing to the brain information from objects or events to be interpreted as an image. Why is this so difficult? Did you even look at this chapter?

 

[peacegirl]

As the eye evolved to detect and absorb light, the eye is a sense organ.

Detecting and absorbing light (which the eyes do) does not prove that impulses are interpreted as images in the brain in the way the term “sense organ” is defined.

So the eye detects and absorbs light, but … it’s not a sense organ.

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

The brain processes the information acquired by the eyes, which was transmitted by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, integrated with memory to enable recognition and represented as subjective conscious imagery of the external world.

How can it be otherwise?

Indeed, and this means that all the author’s worries about conditioning, which are quite valid, has nothing to do with light or the eyes but with the brain.

But it does. That's what you are failing to understand. You're not seeing why this has everything to do with how the brain functions and why images are not interpreted in the brain.

 

[peacegirl]

As the eye evolved to detect and absorb light, the eye is a sense organ.

Detecting and absorbing light (which the eyes do) does not prove that impulses are interpreted as images in the brain in the way the term “sense organ” is defined.

So the eye detects and absorbs light, but … it’s not a sense organ.

Light is a condition of sight, Pood. He never refuted this, but this does not prove what happens in the brain. Do you understand why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, or are you just ignoring this chapter? You will go to great lengths to prove him wrong, even to say that dogs, and even bees, are able to recognize their caregivers from a lineup or a picture -- without any other cues to inform them. Did you ever consider that it is YOU who is in denial?

The brain processes the information acquired by the eyes, which was transmitted by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, integrated with memory to enable recognition and represented as subjective conscious imagery of the external world.

How can it be otherwise?

By a different observation that says the brain does not process the information that supposedly represents a subjective imagery of the external world. If it did, then we would not be conditioned by words. We would see this beauty and ugliness in the light itself as it is carried to our eyes. I know it sounds crazy, and it is because light does not carry information of any kind, let alone values. He shows why in his demonstration. We see objects in the real world due to light's presence, not the other way around.