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

[peacegirl]

Oh, and, Bees Recognize Human Faces.

Where is the experiment? The only way to tell is if bees can identify their beekeeper's face is in a lineup (which is so silly I'm laughing). Patterns may be recognized, but that is not the same as identifying their beekeeper by facial features alone. Seriously Pood, you are a smart guy, but you are losing your objectivity.

 

[peacegirl]

You’re wrong DBT. If you only understood his evidence, you wouldn’t say that.

peacegirl, in your writer’s tumid, turbid, vapid, and self-aggrandizing scribblings, he seems somehow to have forgotten to supply this evidence. Could you supply it in his stead? Specifically, what, according to him, happens AFTER the light enters the pupil? He claims NOTHING impinges on the optic nerve, so what DOES happen? Also, what, according to him, is the optic nerve FOR? Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated, particularly since so far you have IGNORED these important questions.

If you keep talking about him in an extremely demeaning and disrespectful way because you are desperate, don't expect me to answer you.

 

[peacegirl]

What is the evidence for light at the eye/instant vision?

DBT, I have explained this many times but you seem to have misunderstood what he means by conditioning. You keep referring back to cultures and social interactions, which is true but it's not the same as being conditioned in terms of how the brain photographs word/object relations, whether true or false, and projects that photograph onto substance. If you want, I will post that excerpt for you again. This does not change the speed of light. It only allows us to see the object because the light is revealing it as we turn our gaze toward it. But there is a requirement: the object must be luminous enough, large enough, or close enough for it to be within our field of view.

 

[peacegirl]

That objects radiate or reflect light is not an assertion

That IS what he is contesting.

Easy to test for yourself. Take a torch and a mirror into a dark room, turn the torch on and use the mirror to reflect the torchlight. The torch emits or radiates light and the mirror - as with all the objects in the room including the walls, reflects that light. The sun radiates light and the earth, moon and planets both absorb and reflect that sunlight.

Basic stuff.

This supports his claim without you realizing it.

 

[pood]

You’re wrong DBT. If you only understood his evidence, you wouldn’t say that.

peacegirl, in your writer’s tumid, turbid, vapid, and self-aggrandizing scribblings, he seems somehow to have forgotten to supply this evidence. Could you supply it in his stead? Specifically, what, according to him, happens AFTER the light enters the pupil? He claims NOTHING impinges on the optic nerve, so what DOES happen? Also, what, according to him, is the optic nerve FOR? Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated, particularly since so far you have IGNORED these important questions.

If you keep talking about him in an extremely demeaning and disrespectful way because you are desperate, don't expect me to answer you.

Zero F’s given. Answer the question: Explain his MODEL. “Efferent vision” is not a model, it is a LABEL for a model! What’s the optic nerve do in his “model”? What does the retina do? He had no idea, and neither do you!

 

[pood]

That objects radiate or reflect light is not an assertion

That IS what he is contesting.

Easy to test for yourself. Take a torch and a mirror into a dark room, turn the torch on and use the mirror to reflect the torchlight. The torch emits or radiates light and the mirror - as with all the objects in the room including the walls, reflects that light. The sun radiates light and the earth, moon and planets both absorb and reflect that sunlight.

Basic stuff.

This supports his claim without you realizing it.

 

[pood]

Here is what the retina and the optic nerve do in the standard (correct) model.

What do they do in your author’s model, peacegirl?

 

[peacegirl]

That objects radiate or reflect light is not an assertion

That IS what he is contesting.

Easy to test for yourself. Take a torch and a mirror into a dark room, turn the torch on and use the mirror to reflect the torchlight. The torch emits or radiates light and the mirror - as with all the objects in the room including the walls, reflects that light. The sun radiates light and the earth, moon and planets both absorb and reflect that sunlight.

Basic stuff.

This example does not reject Lessans’ claim. It supports it. The mirror does not reflect the light. The word reflect is confusing because it implies the reflection travels for eternity. This is false. The light does not bounce off of … it reveals what is there. In this case, the mirror shows up as a mirror image due to light’s presence which is very different from the present model.

 

[peacegirl]

peacegirl, in your writer’s tumid, turbid, vapid, and self-aggrandizing scribblings, he seems somehow to have forgotten to supply this evidence. Could you supply it in his stead? Specifically, what, according to him, happens AFTER the light enters the pupil? He claims NOTHING impinges on the optic nerve, so what DOES happen? Also, what, according to him, is the optic nerve FOR? Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated, particularly since so far you have IGNORED these important questions.

If you keep talking about him in an extremely demeaning and disrespectful way because you are desperate, don't expect me to answer you.

Zero F’s given. Answer the question: Explain his MODEL. “Efferent vision” is not a model, it is a LABEL for a model! What’s the optic nerve do in his “model”? What does the retina do? He had no idea, and neither do you!

The optic nerve and the retina remain the same. What does not remain the same is what the brain does, and the present model cannot prove that it creates images from incoming impulses. I don't have to create an entirely new model because the brain still uses the optic nerve and the retina to see. You are not going to trap me into something that will make you believe you got me.

 

[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.

That makes no sense. Those who are born blind are still conditioned by the society in which they were born, values, attitudes, life experiences, etc, contribute to shape a person's interactions with the world. The absence of vision obviously effects their experience, but not in the way that you believe.

The conditioning you’re talking about is real but it’s not related to the conditioning that occurs with the eyes.

Yet visual information is conveyed by the eyes to the brain via the optic nerve to be processed and integrated into a comprehensive body of information about the external world and self. It adds to an understanding of our environment and our response to its events.

Making the assumption that light is simply 'at the eye' and we see events without delay adds nothing to the issue. Say we did see without delay...so what? The event is still the same. We see a car crash where some rush to help, others stand and watch while others keep moving without involvement. Seeing 'in real time' changes nothing.

It changes a lot of things, and the fact that you didn't see this after I posted most of the chapter makes me realize this is going to be much harder to explain than I realized.

What difference does it make what we call them? The substance of which they are made is still the same.”

“It makes all the difference in the world. There was a time when man believed the earth was flat, and though it is true his opinions can never change the actual shape of the earth, how could it have ever been possible to land men on the moon without first knowing that the earth is a sphere? In other words, this belief in the flatness of the earth prevented scientific investigation by closing a door to all those who believed it. Consequently, if everybody knows that man has five senses when in reality he does not, how is it possible for anyone to open the door marked Man Does Not Have Five Senses?”

“He’s right, Charlie. In a million years I would never think to open that door. But why don’t we have them?”

“Because the eyes are not a sense organ. Aristotle made an assumption that they functioned like the other organs, and he called all of them senses. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruit. Since we can see that the potato is not a fruit because it is grown differently, there isn’t any problem, but when you learn what this single thing (believing or knowing the eyes are a sense organ) has done to the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. But before I open this door marked Man Does Not Have Five Senses to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove that the eyes are not a sense organ.

The dictionary states that the word sense is ‘any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli, as of sight, taste, smell, etc.’ But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch, and smell.”

 

[peacegirl]

A bunch of animals can recognize individual humans.

This is called “science,” peacegirl. You should check it out some time.

Also, we await you giving your author’s “model” for how the eyes work. How are you coming along with that project?

What animals can recognize individual human faces? The chimpanzee? The gorilla? The orangutan? Koko, the gorilla could identify people because he knew some sign language. You are trying to discredit Lessans but you are inadvertently supporting him.

Koko: A Talking Gorilla - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[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?

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!

Bump for peacegirl.

You seem to have somehow forgotten to attend to this.

The present model says that light is converted into electrical signals that can be processed by the brain. It sounds logical, but if Lessans was right (which I believe he was), the brain does not process signals. I don't have to explain how this model works at this point. Everything about the structure of the eye remains the same. All I have to show is how the brain creates this projection and subsequent conditioning that could not occur if the eyes were afferent. No matter how convincing this scientific model sounds, it can still be wrong. And no matter how unconvincing Lessans' model of sight sounds, it can still be right.

 

[Jarhyn]

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!

Bump for peacegirl.

You seem to have somehow forgotten to attend to this.

The present model says that light is converted into electrical signals that can be processed by the brain. It sounds logical, but if Lessans was right (which I believe he was), the brain does not process signals. I don't have to explain how this model works at this point. Everything about the structure of the eye remains the same. All I have to show is how the brain creates this projection and subsequent conditioning that could not occur if the eyes were afferent. No matter how convincing this scientific model sounds, it can still be wrong. And no matter how unconvincing Lessans' model of sight sounds, it can still be right.

Holy shit what is this thread?!?

Like seriously what the fuck.

We know for a fact the eye is generating signals, and the brain is processing them. I have literally taken classes where we dissect the math that describes the signals and exactly how and why they are "processed".

I have applied this model to manually build signal processing structures with those objects.

We have reverse engineered a large scale neural system (a fly brain) to fully map out how and why it processes information into behavioral signals.

 

[peacegirl]

Hopefully, people will eventually understand why this knowledge is not only correct but significant.

We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present. This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes less time for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand feet away than when it is five thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the waves of light. (NOTE: Sending a picture of itself was his shorthand for sending information on the waves of light.) If it were possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them, and it takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars.

To sum this up, just as we have often observed that a marching band is out of step with the beat when seen from a distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on the radio, we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they given any choice?

 

[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?

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!

Bump for peacegirl.

You seem to have somehow forgotten to attend to this.

The present model says that light is converted into electrical signals that can be processed by the brain. It sounds logical, but if Lessans was right (which I believe he was), the brain does not process signals. I don't have to explain how this model works at this point. Everything about the structure of the eye remains the same. All I have to show is how the brain creates this projection and subsequent conditioning that could not occur if the eyes were afferent. No matter how convincing this scientific model sounds, it can still be wrong. And no matter how unconvincing Lessans' model of sight sounds, it can still be right.

Holy shit what is this thread?!?

Like seriously what the fuck.

We know for a fact the eye is generating signals,

Signals are generated, but how they are processed is a different story. You can argue with me until the cows come home. You have no idea why he made this claim, and until you do, you cannot shoot it down.

and the brain is processing them. I have literally taken classes where we dissect the math that describes the signals and exactly how and why they are "processed".

The brain processes what it sees, but it does not process the signals and interpret them as images. You can believe what you want, but you do not understand why he claimed what he did. In fact, you don't have a clue what his claim even was.

I have applied this model to manually build signal processing structures with those objects.

Manually building a signal processing structure is not the same as proving how the human brain processes information.

We have reverse engineered a large scale neural system (a fly brain) to fully map out how and why it processes information into behavioral signals.

A fly brain is not a human brain. Neither is a dog brain or a gorilla brain or a bird brain, for that matter. They don't have the particular attributes that make human brains uniquely different—but thanks for sharing anyway.

 

[bilby]

We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present.

If this is true, how is it that a telescope allows us to see stars that are not visible to the naked eye?

If we look at a particular patch of night sky, we see a certain number of stars in a given area with our naked eyes, but if we look at the same patch of sky through a telescope, we see more stars - the ones we could see before, plus some extra ones we couldn't see before.

The stars do not change their size, nor their luminosity, when viewed through a telescope.

According to the mainstream theories of optics, a telescope collects light over a larger area than the naked eye does - it takes the light incident upon a large 'objective lens' (or mirror), and concentrates that light by angling it into the eye. It literally works ONLY because seeing a star requires light to travel from the star to the eye.

No star is less than 1.6x10²⁹kg, or 160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes; No star is less luminous than 8x10^-7L⊙, or 300,000,000,000,000,000,000W. So they are not invisible because they lack size or luminosity.

According to mainstream physics, these stars are initially invisible because the number of photons arriving at the retina is too low to trigger a signal in the optic nerve; And they become visible because the telescope catches photons over the larger area of the objective lens (or mirror), and directs them all to the pupil, so more photons arrive at the eye via the telescope directing them into the pupil, than arrive at the unaided pupil.

According to Lessans, these stars should always be visible, with or without a telescope, as they are very large, very luminous, and in our visual field. But they are not. So how can we explain this observation, if we accept Lessans's claim that luminosity and size are the sole criteria that determine their visibility?

 

[peacegirl]

We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present.

If this is true, how is it that a telescope allows us to see stars that are not visible to the naked eye?

How do binoculars or magnifying glasses work? They all work by manipulating the lens.

Binoculars work by

1. Capturing light through an objective lens.
2. Reflecting and rotating the light using prisms.
3. Magnifying the image using an eyepiece lens.
4. Providing a clearer view of distant objects

The first step to understanding how a magnifying glass works is to understand how your eyes work in general. When you see an object, it is because light waves are bouncing off that object and shooting directly into your eye. Because your eye is relatively small, and it only detects light that shoots directly into it, all of these waves of light are roughly parallel to each other (this is important).

Your eyes are designed to take all these parallel lines and correctly interpret the size of everything you are seeing as long as the waves of light hitting your eye are roughly parallel.

How The Convex Lens Tricks Your Eye
Most magnifying glasses use a pair of convex lenses back-to-back. Convex means to curve outward as you get closer to the center of the lens. The objective lens (the one pointed away from you), bends the light that passes through it and focuses it into your eye at an angle.

If we look at a particular patch of night sky, we see a certain number of stars in a given area with our naked eyes, but if we look at the same patch of sky through a telescope, we see more stars - the ones we could see before, plus some extra ones we couldn't see before.

That makes sense.

The stars do not change their size, nor their luminosity, when viewed through a telescope.

No, it doesn't, but a telescope can magnify what cannot be seen by the naked eye.

The lens of a telescope makes objects appear larger by collecting more light, spreading out the real image, and magnifying the image12345. The eyepiece lens captures the bright, focused light from the objective lens and spreads it out over the retina of the observer's eye, making the image appear larger3.

According to the mainstream theories of optics, a telescope collects light over a larger area than the naked eye does - it takes the light incident upon a large 'objective lens' (or mirror), and concentrates that light by angling it into the eye. It literally works ONLY because seeing a star requires light to travel from the star to the eye.

Why does light have to travel?
When a telescope lens is focused on an object:

• The objective lens focuses the light rays to form a real image of the object1.
• The eyepiece is placed at the focus of the objective and provides the magnification needed to study the objects3.
• The eyepiece focuses the image at a distance that is either directly viewable by a human or at a convenient place for a detector4.

The light from the star is collected by the telescope because the lens is able to magnify the image. If there wasn't even a small amount of light because the star was too far away, a telescope would have nothing to magnify. That's why the stronger the lens, the greater the magnification of celestial objects that cannot be seen otherwise.

No star is less than 1.6x10²⁹kg, or 160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes; No star is less luminous than 8x10^-7L⊙, or 300,000,000,000,000,000,000W. So they are not invisible because they lack size or luminosity.

According to mainstream physics, these stars are initially invisible because the number of photons arriving at the retina is too low to trigger a signal in the optic nerve; And they become visible because the telescope catches photons over the larger area of the objective lens (or mirror), and directs them all to the pupil, so more photons arrive at the eye via the telescope directing them into the pupil, than arrive at the unaided pupil.

I can't argue with facts.

According to Lessans, these stars should always be visible, with or without a telescope, as they are very large, very luminous, and in our visual field. But they are not. So how can we explain this observation, if we accept Lessans's claim that luminosity and size are the sole criteria that determine their visibility?

He never said that stars should always be visible, with or without a telescope. In fact, he said if the light is traveling with the information to our eyes, why would we need a telescope at all? By the same token, why do we need a microscope to see objects that are invisible to the naked eye? Telescopes help us see through magnification what cannot be seen unaided. Just as you wrote, the telescope lens gathers a small amount of light from the star, which makes it appear larger, or there would be nothing to see.

 

[Jarhyn]

A fly brain is not a human brain

Wow. Just... Wow. Neural networks are, by their nature, functional information processing systems. You're in "were you there" territory at this point.

Get a grip. Drop the "magic of the gaps" and come join reality.

 

[peacegirl]

A fly brain is not a human brain

Wow. Just... Wow. Neural networks are, by their nature, functional information processing systems. You're in "were you there" territory at this point.

Get a grip. Drop the "magic of the gaps" and come join reality.

No one here is removing neural networks but you cannot compare a fly brain to a human brain. Get a grip, Jarhyn.

 

[bilby]

Why does light have to travel?

How does the telescope affect light if it doesn't?

It at the very least has to travel through the telescope.