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

[pood]

Stuff like this invention makes you proud to be a human, until you realize what the vast majority of the rest of humanity are like, and what they do and support every day.

And then you realize maybe Ayn Rand had a number of things right after all.

 

[Jarhyn]

Stuff like this invention makes you proud to be a human, until you realize what the vast majority of the rest of humanity are like, and what they do and support every day.

And then you realize maybe Ayn Rand had a number of things right after all.

Well, there's a difference between a parasite looking to blackmail humanity into building heaven specifically and only for them on the back of such an idea, and someone building such ideas so that everyone and they may have them.

I hate Ayn specifically because that shitheel is "fuck you, I've got mine" rather than "oh, hi you, here's yours!"

 

[peacegirl]

Well, I can sure as shit know my model helps people to see because AFAIK, didn't someone get an ocular implant that processes signals according to that theory?

Yep!

Surgeon completes first successful implantation of wireless visual prosthesis brain implant

While there is currently no cure for blindness, an artificial vision system has undergone its first successful implantation, bringing with it the potential to restore partial vision to people who have lost their sight.

www.ophthalmologytimes.com

Not only is the eye a sensory organ, we have reproduced it's function in situ using that theory.

That’s really awesome. And, of course, yet another direct and incontrovertible refutation of the author’s claims.

Not really. The electrodes are allowing a person to see something, but it does not turn vision into true sight. If it did, it would be more than just light perception or some shadows. I wish it were true that sight could be restored this way. It's a noble effort, and it would be a major scientific achievement if they could restore normal sight. They would need more electrodes implanted to see is the visual cortex could convert these electrodes into an image of the real thing.

“For people who are completely blind, gaining even a little bit of light perception can make a huge difference,” Janet P. Szlyk, president and CEO of The Chicago Lighthouse, said in the institute’s news release.

Surgeon completes first successful implantation of wireless visual prosthesis brain implant

While there is currently no cure for blindness, an artificial vision system has undergone its first successful implantation, bringing with it the potential to restore partial vision to people who have lost their sight.

www.ophthalmologytimes.com

You don’t understand why physics has nothing to do with it.

Physics has everything to do with how light works and how we see. Your author’s claim has nothing to do with physics, though, and by the principle of transitivity, nothing to do with how light works and how we see.

When you say eye/instant vision, you still have the mindset that light has to reach our eyes through travel like in a car.

Because that is exactly what it does.

You are missing the entire reason as to why this is not so.

Could you give that alleged reason for the first time ever, in all the years you have been promoting these claims? Because the author certainly doesn’t.

He gave a demonstration of what he described is happening. The neural networks would remain the same but instead of the brain converting the signals into images, it would use those signals that connect the retina and optic nerve to see the world as it is now. IOW, the signals do not get transduced as images because nothing in the signal contains that information. That’s why he said nothing in the light strikes the optic nerve. Rather, the optic nerve allows the brain to look through the eyes (the retina), as a window to see existence.

The brain and eyes are part of the central nervous system which gives further evidence how the eyes are different from the other 4 senses. Science has already mapped out how the eyes work in great detail and they are correct except for this one misstep which has huge implications as to how we see the world and each other. When we stop using words that don’t symbolize reality but have caused a distorted view of what we think we see (because we cannot deny that we see these differences with our very eyes), we will be living in a world that brings everyone up to a level of equality that was never before possible. Once this new understanding is confirmed to be sound, science can do more testing in order to map out this alternative view in much more detail.

Sorry, still no model. A nice display of gibberish, though.

Your author says the light enters the pupil. What happens to it then?

Total blank out from him and you.

He showed what happens. Do you even understand what he meant by that?

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?

Earlier you said the optic nerve has no nerve ending, and that “ought to be a clue” of something or other, lol. Except, the optic nerve has up to 1.7 million nerve endings, and the are all afferent, not efferent. The lens focus the light on the retina after it enters the pupil. The retina consists of photoreceptors. You used the word yourself earlier. Did you notice the “receptors” part in there? That means RECEIVE. The photoreceptors RECEIVE the focused light and convert it to electrical signals that are sent to the brain for processing.

Not a nerve

---

Because the optic nerve is really a tract, not a nerve, it is surrounded by the three layers of meninges and cerebrospinal fluid. The two optic nerves meet underneath the hypothalamus, just in front of the pituitary stalk, and many of the fibers cross to the opposite side.

Optic Nerve - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics​

Nor is any of this guesswork, assumption, or dogma. It’s well-tested reality.

How does your “model” enable us to see? Where does the light go after it enters the eye? How can the optic nerve transmit signals when it is entirely afferent? Even if it did transmit signals outward, how would that enable us to see?? How would these signals interact with the incoming light?? How would this inane patchwork of falsities enable us not just to see but to see in real time??

You have no idea. You’re just making shit up, throwing at a wall, and praying some of it sticks.

He gave a demonstration of what takes place. He didn't get into the details of how this occurs, although this alone did not negate his observations, which you are trying very hard to do. I bet you can't even tell me, after all this time, what the brain is capable of doing, according to him. You never answer questions. You skip over them as if I didn't notice.

 

[Jarhyn]

God this is just sad.

Peacegirl, I actually know how the mechanism in the brain is built such that it becomes capable of decoding gradient information and linear boundaries, and how these signal attributions sum to signals attributing other qualities in turn, and how the vocabulary itself for this is developed in turn.

You're pointing at a quantity problem and calling it a quality problem.

Please just stop.

You're giving me the same vibes as my neighbor who doesn't come out of his house because he's afraid of cameras stealing his soul or whatever whenever he talks about cameras stealing his soul or whatever.

 

[peacegirl]

God this is just sad.

Peacegirl, I actually know how the mechanism in the brain is built such that it becomes capable of decoding gradient information and linear boundaries, and how these signal attributions sum to signals attributing other qualities in turn, and how the vocabulary itself for this is developed in turn.

You're pointing at a quantity problem and calling it a quality problem.

Please just stop.

You're giving me the same vibes as my neighbor who doesn't come out of his house because he's afraid of cameras stealing his soul or whatever whenever he talks about cameras stealing his soul or whatever.

 

[bilby]

You don’t understand why physics has nothing to do with it.

Physics has everything to do with how light works and how we see. Your author’s claim has nothing to do with physics, though, and by the principle of transitivity, nothing to do with how light works and how we see.

When you say eye/instant vision, you still have the mindset that light has to reach our eyes through travel like in a car.

Because that is exactly what it does.

You are missing the entire reason as to why this is not so.

Could you give that alleged reason for the first time ever, in all the years you have been promoting these claims? Because the author certainly doesn’t.

He gave a demonstration of what he described is happening. The neural networks would remain the same but instead of the brain converting the signals into images, it would use those signals that connect the retina and optic nerve to see the world as it is now. IOW, the signals do not get transduced as images because nothing in the signal contains that information. That’s why he said nothing in the light strikes the optic nerve. Rather, the optic nerve allows the brain to look through the eyes (the retina), as a window to see existence.

The brain and eyes are part of the central nervous system which gives further evidence how the eyes are different from the other 4 senses. Science has already mapped out how the eyes work in great detail and they are correct except for this one misstep which has huge implications as to how we see the world and each other. When we stop using words that don’t symbolize reality but have caused a distorted view of what we think we see (because we cannot deny that we see these differences with our very eyes), we will be living in a world that brings everyone up to a level of equality that was never before possible. Once this new understanding is confirmed to be sound, science can do more testing in order to map out this alternative view in much more detail.

That's an astonishingly large number of words, when a simple "no" would have carried the same information.

I gave the alleged reason, which I was asked to do. A simple “no” would have not sufficed.

OK. I will add "reason" to the list of words you don't use to mean the same thing as everyone else, then.

 

[bilby]

It doesn’t have to be an exact model.

Yes. Yes it does. It really does. That's a fundamental prerequisite for understanding.

This is insanity pood.

Well at least we can agree on something.

 

[bilby]

And then you realize maybe Ayn Rand had a number of things right after all.

No, she really didn't.

 

[peacegirl]

God this is just sad.

Peacegirl, I actually know how the mechanism in the brain is built such that it becomes capable of decoding gradient information and linear boundaries, and how these signal attributions sum to signals attributing other qualities in turn, and how the vocabulary itself for this is developed in turn.

You're pointing at a quantity problem and calling it a quality problem.

Decoding an image of reality is one thing; seeing reality using these inputs is quite another. It makes sense that the visual cortex could work in some rudimentary way. The question remains: is the brain interpreting the signals as a true image of what is seen, or are these inputs nothing more than decoded information from signals that have no real correlation to anything external? The CEO of this organization talks about light perception.

“For people who are completely blind, gaining even a little bit of light perception can make a huge difference,” Janet P. Szlyk, president and CEO of The Chicago Lighthouse, said in the institute’s news release. “The findings from this research will help pave the way for other groundbreaking advancements in blindness research and vision restoration.”

Surgeon completes first successful implantation of wireless visual prosthesis brain implant

While there is currently no cure for blindness, an artificial vision system has undergone its first successful implantation, bringing with it the potential to restore partial vision to people who have lost their sight.

www.ophthalmologytimes.com

My author never said that light doesn't signal the optic nerve and brain. He just said that nothing but light could be transmitted. IOW, no image can be created internally. If it turns out that people could get even a little bit of vision back due to this new technology, I would be the first to cheer them on. Would it mean the author was wrong? I don't think so, but I would need to reevaluate.

 

[pood]

And then you realize maybe Ayn Rand had a number of things right after all.

No, she really didn't.

What I mean by Rand getting some things right is that she pushed the idea that a lot of history is moved forward by a relative handful of people. And there is some truth to that. In one of his book the philosopher Norman Swartz talks about Newton, the first and only person who had the insight of how bodies attract each other, and wonders if Newton had never lived, whether anyone else would have hit on this insight. Maybe, maybe not. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Rand fan, but when I see a minuscule number of people inventing artificial eyes while so much of the rest of humanity supports or prosecutes wars, votes for Donald Trump, etc., I feel depressed.

And of course, for peacegirl, artificial sight based on AFFERENT mechanisms isn’t sight at all, because reasons.

 

[bilby]

I am kinda fascinated to know; How does Lessans think a movie projector works?

How does the image get from the projector to the eye, when the projector is behind the viewer, and out of his line of sight, and when according to Lessans, an image is not formed by light bouncing off things. What purpose does a movie screen serve, and how does a cinema work at all, according to his "model"?

 

[DBT]

I have not attacked you for no reason. You have attacked me and this author.

"Disagreed with" ≠ "Attacked".

If your ideas cannot stand scrutiny, they deserve to be attacked. You yourself have not been attacked at all.

BTW, Laughing at someone who is being clearly ridiculous isn't an attack, either.

It was callous. It was nasty. It was demeaning. It was unhelpful. It was hurtful. And it was wrong IN ALL ASPECTS!

It's pointless.

Nobody is going to be convinced in claims like light at the eye/instant vision. It goes against all evidence.

That the author was wrong on this doesn't necessarily mean that he was wrong about environment and human conditioning, so if you see change as being important, it would be better to just focus on that aspect and drop light/instant vision, which serves no purpose other than to discredit the observations on human behaviour that he may have had.

It is a very important topic because it changes our perception. There are things such as cars, houses, trees, streets, chairs (you get the point) that are real because these things correspond to real aspects of the known universe, but there are other words that do not correspond but appear as if they do. This has everything to do with how the eyes work, or we would not be able to be conditioned in this way, which has hurt many. Anyway, I'm tired of proving this to people. I have no desire for them to even read the chapter.

It's not how our eyes work that conditions us in terms of how we interpret the events of the world. The eyes just convey information to the brain, which processes that information in order to build a mental picture of the world and self.

That’s the theory. The brain obviously processes information, but because of how it works, the information that it processes is the result of our becoming conditioned by words. This process does not remove building a mental picture of the world and self. In fact, it is based on what we see, although what we see is distorted when we use words that do not describe true reality.

The 'light at the eyes/instant vision" adds nothing to the issue and only serves to discredit the authors insights into human behaviour.

If no one here ever desires to read this book because they think he's wrong, it's their loss. I will never take this claim out of his 30-year work.

The book would be more credible if the errors are edited and removed. It's not that the reader thinks that 'light at the eye/instant vision' is wrong, but that according to physics, it is demonstrably wrong. The world does not work like that.

You don’t understand why physics has nothing to do with it. When you say eye/instant vision, you still have the mindset that light has to reach our eyes through travel like in a car. You are missing the entire reason as to why this is not so.

The structure and function of the eye more than a theory. It's a theory based on observable, testable fact. Not only the eye, but how light is generated, emitted, reflected, refracted, spectrum, wavelength, its speed in a vacuum, etc, etc.

 

[Jarhyn]

And then you realize maybe Ayn Rand had a number of things right after all.

No, she really didn't.

What I mean by Rand getting some things right is that she pushed the idea that a lot of history is moved forward by a relative handful of people. And there is some truth to that. In one of his book the philosopher Norman Swartz talks about Newton, the first and only person who had the insight of how bodies attract each other, and wonders if Newton had never lived, whether anyone else would have hit on this insight. Maybe, maybe not. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Rand fan, but when I see a minuscule number of people inventing artificial eyes while so much of the rest of humanity supports or prosecutes wars, votes for Donald Trump, etc., I feel depressed.

And of course, for peacegirl, artificial sight based on AFFERENT mechanisms isn’t sight at all, because reasons.

I figured this is what you were going for? Thanks for clarifying.

Personally, I aim to create a better, different sort of artificial eye. But this is foundational to proving out theories of operation on the first place.

I actually did a lot of work to place myself in companies that actually put together the theory of function for a sensor technology in preparation for when I eventually got money for a lab, which is probably going to happen at this point.

I had an interest so regardless of whether to do so is profitable, scalable, "wise", or profitable to build a DIY full stack vision system that takes in the input of a camera and then on the other end outputs frame by frame what the camera "sees".

I don't mind using synthetic data, or can ed data, I don't mind buying ingredients to this machine so long as I know how they are made!

I have had to diligently study this to the level of a systems engineer, mostly on my own because to put it bluntly I wasn't born to the sort of family whose scions normally get to work on that sort of thing.

The reason a few-channel sensor can only see a vague sensation on a single dimension is because it doesn't carry enough parallel data for that. This is understood well by the people engineering such technologies.

The issue is more... The eye sees at a pretty damn good resolution, and data at that resolution has to make contact with the optic nerve. There's a break-out of that nerve at the eye, but it gets more narrow as it goes through the skull, because nerves can cluster more densely than the complicated structure of cones and rods, and if they fire faster than the cones and rods reset, they can duplex information with sequenced signals to use fewer neurons than cones/rods, and I expect any such process is learned over time by the interaction of the optic nerve with the larger brain.

Getting that much data out in parallel requires some creative thinking and specialized connectors. That's why this little digital packet signaling thing can't let someone see a shadow: the sheer lack of resolution and channels of data.

 

[pood]

My author never said that light doesn't signal the optic nerve and brain

He said nothing impinges on the optic nerve.

. He just said that nothing but light could be transmitted.

He said that images flew on wings of light. They don’t. Images are made in the brain.

IOW, no image can be created internally.

Images are created internally.
ETA: He said that scientists said images fly on wings of light. Scientists don’t say that.

 

[pood]

Light carries information, about the source of the light, or the object off of which the light is reflected. The image and any evaluation of it is constructed in the brain.

The well-attested special theory of relativity rules out the transfer of information at faster-than-light speeds. So real-time seeing is ruled out.

 

[DBT]

God this is just sad.

Peacegirl, I actually know how the mechanism in the brain is built such that it becomes capable of decoding gradient information and linear boundaries, and how these signal attributions sum to signals attributing other qualities in turn, and how the vocabulary itself for this is developed in turn.

You're pointing at a quantity problem and calling it a quality problem.

Decoding an image of reality is one thing; seeing reality using these inputs is quite another. It makes sense that the visual cortex could work in some rudimentary way. The question remains: is the brain interpreting the signals as a true image of what is seen, or are these inputs nothing more than decoded information from signals that have no real correlation to anything external? The CEO of this organization talks about light perception.

“For people who are completely blind, gaining even a little bit of light perception can make a huge difference,” Janet P. Szlyk, president and CEO of The Chicago Lighthouse, said in the institute’s news release. “The findings from this research will help pave the way for other groundbreaking advancements in blindness research and vision restoration.”

Surgeon completes first successful implantation of wireless visual prosthesis brain implant

While there is currently no cure for blindness, an artificial vision system has undergone its first successful implantation, bringing with it the potential to restore partial vision to people who have lost their sight.

www.ophthalmologytimes.com

My author never said that light doesn't signal the optic nerve and brain. He just said that nothing but light could be transmitted. IOW, no image can be created internally. If it turns out that people could get even a little bit of vision back due to this new technology, I would be the first to cheer them on. Would it mean the author was wrong? I don't think so, but I would need to reevaluate.

The brain creates a subjective, virtual representation of the world and self based on the information it acquires from both the senses and memory function.

The information comes from the external world and memory, but our conscious experience of the world is entirely in our head.

 

[peacegirl]

And then you realize maybe Ayn Rand had a number of things right after all.

No, she really didn't.

What I mean by Rand getting some things right is that she pushed the idea that a lot of history is moved forward by a relative handful of people. And there is some truth to that. In one of his book the philosopher Norman Swartz talks about Newton, the first and only person who had the insight of how bodies attract each other, and wonders if Newton had never lived, whether anyone else would have hit on this insight. Maybe, maybe not. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Rand fan, but when I see a minuscule number of people inventing artificial eyes while so much of the rest of humanity supports or prosecutes wars, votes for Donald Trump, etc., I feel depressed.

You shouldn’t feel depressed about war being inevitable if you understood the book even a little bit.

And of course, for peacegirl, artificial sight based on AFFERENT mechanisms isn’t sight at all, because reasons.

Reasons that make sense. Stop it!

 

[Jarhyn]

our conscious experience of the world is entirely in our head

I would say a better verb would be "by the action of" rather than "in". Such verbiage to me would imply anything that has that action has that experience, which is much more materialistic and deterministic, true to the nature of process.

I say this because maybe you will argue or agree with this because the topic is boring and stupid.

 

[pood]

And then you realize maybe Ayn Rand had a number of things right after all.

No, she really didn't.

What I mean by Rand getting some things right is that she pushed the idea that a lot of history is moved forward by a relative handful of people. And there is some truth to that. In one of his book the philosopher Norman Swartz talks about Newton, the first and only person who had the insight of how bodies attract each other, and wonders if Newton had never lived, whether anyone else would have hit on this insight. Maybe, maybe not. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Rand fan, but when I see a minuscule number of people inventing artificial eyes while so much of the rest of humanity supports or prosecutes wars, votes for Donald Trump, etc., I feel depressed.

You shouldn’t feel depressed about war being inevitable if you understood the book even a little bit.

And of course, for peacegirl, artificial sight based on AFFERENT mechanisms isn’t sight at all, because reasons.

Reasons that make sense. Stop it!

What reasons would those be? Maybe you’d like to offer them for the first time.

 

[peacegirl]

I am kinda fascinated to know; How does Lessans think a movie projector works?

How does the image get from the projector to the eye, when the projector is behind the viewer, and out of his line of sight, and when according to Lessans, an image is not formed by light bouncing off things. What purpose does a movie screen serve, and how does a cinema work at all, according to his "model"?

The projector may be behind the viewer, but the screen or wall that is used to project the image is in front of the viewer. He then is able to see the image on the screen, which is keeping with Lessans' claim. This is where he shows how words can condition us to see what is just a projection but not a reality.

As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age. The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain, all words that are placed in front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world, and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe, then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not know the words.

The Basics of Projector Technology​

A projector works by using a lamp or LED to create a bright light that passes through an imaging device. The light is then projected onto a screen, creating the image. There are three primary types of imaging technology used in projectors: LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), DLP (Digital Light Processing), and LCoS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon). Each technology has its advantages and disadvantages, such as color accuracy, contrast ratio, and image resolution.

When it comes to watching movies on a projector, the process is straightforward. The movie is played on a device, such as a Blu-ray player or streaming device, that is connected to the projector. The projector then takes the digital signal from the device and projects it onto a screen or wall.

The image projected by the projector is created using thousands of individual pixels that work together to create a seamless image. The pixels are arranged in a grid-like pattern, with each pixel representing a specific color. The projector’s imaging technology determines the number of pixels and the color accuracy of the image.

How Do Projectors Work for Movies? - Home Theater Geek

Discover how projectors work for movies and the technology behind it in this informative article.

hometheatergeek.com